Abstract
Humans are not unique among primates (and mammals more broadly) in that males tend to favor sexual unrestrictedness more than women, nor are humans unique in that females bear a greater burden of parenting than males. Across species, parenting costs are theorized to limit sexual unrestrictedness, and the sex differences in these costs are theorized to explain sex differences in sexual restrictedness (Trivers, 1972). Among humans, if sociocultural factors can lessen these parenting costs to women, then cultural-level sociocultural variances in women’s parenting costs should correspond with cultural-level variances in women’s sexual unrestrictedness. Across N = 48 cultures, as women’s parenting costs decreased via reduced physiological costs (indicated by fertility rates, breastfeeding prevalence, contraceptive use and availability, and maternal mortality rates) and increased economic access (to offset parenting costs, indicated by income and workforce participation), women’s sexual unrestrictedness increased (rs = −.45 and .47, respectively). This research contributes to the cross-species literature suggesting that the costs associated with parenting selectively restrict sexual unrestrictedness and that sex differences in sexual restrictedness emerged as sex-specific adaptations to these costs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The materials used in this study were taken from publicly available sites as listed in the references section. However, the dataset and syntax are available at https://osf.io/yfrx8/?view_only=8f8024a559164897a34860bc51a15010; access to the data is limited to qualified researchers upon request.
Notes
Note that creating a mean composite, in SPSS, when some items are missing, will create a mean based on the available items. This does suggest that the meaning of “women’s physiological parenting costs” differs somewhat by country. However, we felt that it was important, nonetheless, to include all of the variables, even those for which only some countries had data. Regardless, the individual item correlates with sociosexuality are provided in Table 1.
References
Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G., & Svensson, I. (1986). Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 29, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236249309378867
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Buss, D. M. (1996). Sexual conflict: evolutionary insights into feminism and the “battle of the sexes.” In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 296–318). Oxford University Press.
Center for Reproductive Rights. (2007). The world’s abortion laws. Retrieved September 4, 2020, from https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1992). Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 67(4), 437–456. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2832015
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology & Sociobiology, 3, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(82)90027-9
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2005). Universal sex differences across patriarchal cultures ≠ evolved psychological dispositions. Brain & Behavioral Sciences, 28(2), 281–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05290052
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: the impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7
Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197(4300), 215–223. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1744497
Foley, M., Reiff, M., Zavala, J., & Pirlott, A. G. (2020, April). Do changes in women’s access to contraceptives and resources predict changes in women’s sociosexuality across cultures? Poster presented at the Saint Xavier University Celebration of Scholarship, Chicago, IL.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–644. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Review, 126, 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55
Gwynne, D. T. (1981). Sexual difference theory: Mormon crickets show role reversal in mate choice. Science, 213(4509), 779–780. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1686615
Haselton, M. G., & Gildersleeve, K. (2011). Can men detect ovulation? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402668
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
International Consortium for Emergency Contraception. (2020). EC knowledge and ever use among women of reproductive age, by country. Retrieved October 29, 2020, from https://www.cecinfo.org/country-by-country-information/status-availability-database/ec-knowledge-and-ever-use-among-women-of-reproductive-age-by-country/
Jones, A. G., Walker, D., & Avise, J. C. (2001). Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences, 268(1485), 2531–2535. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1841
Kachel, A. F., Premo, L. S., & Hublin, J. -J. (2011). Grandmothering and natural selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 384–391. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40999990.pdf
Kleimann, D. G. (1977). Monogamy in mammals. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 52(1), 39–69. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2824293
Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social structure theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8
Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science, 341(6145), 526–530. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23491205
Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8(4), 329–369. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3772907
Peterson, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504
Pew Research Center. (2013). Modern parenthood: roles of moms and dads converge as they balance work and family. Retrieved January 13, 2022 from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/03/FINAL_modern_parenthood_03-2013.pdf
Preacher, K. J. (2002, May). Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org. Accessed 27 Apr 2020
Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.212
Schmitt, D. P. (n.d.). International sexuality description project. Brunel University London. https://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/Projects/International-Sexuality-Description-Project. Accessed 11 Aug 2020
Schmitt, D. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000051
Schmitt, D. P., & Fuller, R. C. (2015). On the varieties of sexual experience: cross-cultural links between religiosity and human mating strategies. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(4), 314–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000036
Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.10.001
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870
The World Bank. (2000). Fertility rate, total (births per woman). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?start=2000
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine Publishing Company.
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2020). Global UNICEF global databases: Infant and young child feeding: Exclusive breastfeeding, predominant breastfeeding. United Nations Children’s Fund, Division of Data, Analysis, Planning, and Monitoring. Retrieved October 29, 2020, from https://data.unicef.org/topic/nutrition/infant-and-young-child-feeding/
United Nations Development Programme. (2001). Human development report 2001. Oxford University Press.
Winkler, L., Moiron, M., Morrow, E. H., & Janicke, T. (2021). Stronger net selection on males across animals. eLife, 10, e68316. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68316
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699
World Economic Forum. (2006). Global gender gap index. Retrieved November 15, 2018, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2006.pdf
Zerjal, T., Xue, Y., Bertorelle, G., Wells, R. S., Bao, W., Zhu, S., Qamar, R., Ayub, Q., Moyyuddin, A., Fu, S., Li, P., Yuldasheva, N., Ruzibakiev, R., Xu, J., Shu, Q., Du, R., Yang, H., Hurles, M. E., Robinson, E., & Tyler-Smith, C. (2003). The genetic legacy of the Mongols. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 72(3), 717–721. https://doi.org/10.1086/367774
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Madelyn Reiff and Jasmine Zavala for their assistance in identifying and obtaining datasets.
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. A.G.P. and M.M.F. identified possible data sources and entered data. A.G.P. conducted the primary analyses. M.M.F. outlined the first draft of the manuscript, with guidance from A.G.P. A.G.P. drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval, Consent to Participate, Consent to Publish
Because the current investigation conducted a secondary analyses of publicly existing data, e.g., as available in published research and from governmental organizations, the Saint Xavier University Institutional Review Board confirmed that no ethical approval was required and no consent to participate or publish was obtained.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Portions of this manuscript were presented at the Saint Xavier University Research Expo, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and the Midwestern Psychological Association Conferences (Foley et al., 2020).
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Pirlott, A.G., Foley, M.M. Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Role of Parenting Costs Limiting Women’s Sexual Unrestrictedness. Evolutionary Psychological Science 9, 338–348 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-023-00361-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-023-00361-4