Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 652–656 | Cite as

Sex Differences in Subjective Estimates of Non-Paternity Rates in Austria

  • Martin Voracek
  • Maryanne FisherEmail author
  • Todd K. Shackelford
Original Paper

Abstract

The determination of paternity is important due to the possibility of cuckoldry and the subsequent squandering of male reproductive effort. Men may be attuned to prevalence rates of cuckoldry in the local environment to assess risk. However, women may have an enhanced ability to assess paternity and may have superior insight into women’s sexual infidelity. Accordingly, this study examined subjective estimates of human non-paternity (HNP), the discrepancy between social/legal versus genetic paternity. The hypothesis was that women would provide higher estimates of HNP than men. A sex difference in the hypothesized direction was observed across four community samples of Austrian adults (totalling 763 men and 795 women), with women overall providing higher HNP estimates than men (14.5% vs. 9.1%). Furthermore, key demographic variables impacted HNP estimates for both sexes: individuals who were unmarried, childless, currently unpartnered, or currently in a romantic relationship of a shorter duration provided higher HNP estimates than their counterparts, thus suggesting that such estimates might be attuned to mating effort and strategies, as well as relationship quality and investment.

Keywords

Paternity certainty Sex differences Subjective estimates Infidelity Mate selection 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The contributions of Angelika Hofhansl, Bettina Manfrini, Helga Preston-Leikauf, and Cornelia Stadlhuber to data collection for this research are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Ashton, G. C. (1980). Mismatches in genetic markers in a large family study. American Journal of Human Genetics, 32, 601–613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayton, P., & Wright, G. (1994). Subjective probability: What should we believe? In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability (pp. 163–184). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition: Copulation masturbation, and infidelity. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, A. (1996). Volkszählung 1991: Lebensgemeinschaften [Austrian census 1991: Cohabitations]. Statistische Nachrichten, 51, 585–590.Google Scholar
  5. Bellis, M. A., & Baker, R. R. (1990). Do females promote sperm competition? Data for humans. Animal Behavior, 40, 997–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bredart, S., & French, R. M. (1999). Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers? A failure to replicate Christenfeld & Hill. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock, D. J. H., & Shrimpton, A. E. (1991). Nonpaternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet, 338, 1151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cerda-Flores, R., Barton, S. A., Marty-Gonzalez, L. F., Rivas, F., & Chakraborty, R. (1999). Estimation of nonpaternity in the Mexican population of Nuevo Leon: A validation study with blood group markers. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 109, 281–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christenfeld, N. J. S., & Hill, E. A. (1995). Whose baby are you? Nature, 378, 669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions of the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1982). Whom are newborns said to resemble? Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond, J. A. (1991). The rise and fall of the third chimpanzee. London: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  15. Diamond, J. A. (2003). Dr. Louis Klein Diamond: Faculty of Medicine Memorial Minute. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/05.30/18-mmdiamond.html, 2002.
  16. Gaulin, S. J. C., McBurney, D. H., & Brakeman-Wartell, S. L. (1997). Matrilateral biases in the investment of aunts and uncles: A consequence and measure of paternity uncertainty. Human Nature, 8, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacIntyre, S., & Sooman, A. (1991). Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet, 338, 869–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McLain, D. K., Setters, D., Moulton, M. P., & Pratt, A. E. (2000). Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neel, J. V., & Weiss, K. M. (1975). The genetic structure of a tribal population, the Yanomama Indians. XIII. Biodemographic Studies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 42, 25–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Regalski, J. M., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (1993). Whom are Mexican infants said to resemble? Monitoring and fostering paternal confidence in the Yucatan. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. (1987). Estimating paternity confidence. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sasse, G., Müller, J., Chakraborty, R., & Ott, J. (1994). Estimating the frequency of nonpaternity in Switzerland. Human Heredity, 44, 337–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sykes, B., & Irven, C. (2000). Surnames and the Y chromosome. American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 1417–1419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Voracek, M. (2001). Marital status as a candidate moderator variable of male-female differences in sexual jealousy: The need for representative population samples. Psychological Reports, 88, 553–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wellings, K., Fields, J., Johnson, A., & Wadsworth, J. (1994). Sexual behaviour in Britain: National survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Voracek
    • 1
  • Maryanne Fisher
    • 2
    Email author
  • Todd K. Shackelford
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Basic Psychological Research, School of PsychologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySaint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyFlorida Atlantic UniversityDavieUSA

Personalised recommendations