Intra- and intergroup conflict are likely to have been recurrent features of human evolutionary history; however, little research has investigated the factors that affect men’s combat alliance decisions. The current study investigated whether features of previous one-on-one combat with an opponent affect men’s interest in allying with that opponent for future group combat. Fifty-eight undergraduate men recruited from a psychology department subject pool participated in a one-on-one laboratory fight simulation. We manipulated fight outcome, perceived fighter health asymmetry, and the presence (...) of a witness over six sets of five rounds of fighting. Following each set, we asked men how interested they would be in allying with their opponent for future group combat. We found that men were more interested in allying with their opponent for future group combat if their opponent won the fight or if a witness was present, but perceived fighter-health asymmetry did not affect men’s decision to ally with their opponent. Exploratory analyses revealed a two-way interaction between fight outcome and the presence of a witness, such that winners without a witness present expressed less interest in allying with their opponent for future group combat. Our findings suggest that men attend to the benefits of allying with a man who has demonstrated relatively superior fighting ability. Alliance with a previous opponent for group combat may vary with the relationship value of the opponent and the utility of demonstrating cooperativeness to third-party observers. These findings inform our understanding of coalition formation. (shrink)

Human life history is unique among primates, most notably the extraordinary length of infant dependency and the formation of long-term pair-bonds. Men and women are motivated to remain pair-bonded to maintain the distribution of male-provisioned resources to a woman and her offspring, or to protect offspring from infanticide. Men and women can employ several strategies to retain their mate and prevent their partner from defecting from the relationship, including individual mate retention (behaviors performed alone) and coalitional mate retention (behaviors performed (...) by a close ally). The current research investigates whether men and women with children perform more frequent mate retention behaviors than men and women without children. Participants (n = 1003) currently in a heterosexual romantic relationship completed a survey, reporting whether they had genetic children with their current romantic partner and how frequently they performed various mate retention behaviors. The results indicate that men (n = 262) and women (n = 234) who share genetic children with their current partner performed more frequent individual mate retention behaviors and requested more frequent coalitional mate retention behaviors than men (n = 280) and women (n = 227) who do not share genetic children with their current partner. The results are interpreted as they relate to hypotheses concerning the evolution of pair-bonding in humans, and mate retention behaviors more generally. Limitations of the current research are discussed, and profitable avenues for future research in this domain are suggested. (shrink)

Life-history-derived models of female sexual development propose menarche timing as a key regulatory mechanism driving subsequent sexual behavior. The current research utilized a twin subsample of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health; _n_ = 514) to evaluate environmental effects on timings of menarche and sexual debut, as well as address potential confounding of these effects within a genetically informative design. Results show mixed support for each life history model and provide little evidence rearing environment is (...) important in the etiology of individual differences in age at menarche. This research calls into question the underlying assumptions of life-history-derived models of sexual development and highlights the need for more behavior genetic research in this area. (shrink)

Famous debate between E. Barbaro and G. Pico della Mirandola in 1485 concerning humanism and scholasticism and the role of rhetoric.