After half a century of debate and few empirical tests, there remains no consensus concerning why ovulation in human females is considered concealed. The predominant male investment hypothesis states that females were better able to obtain material investment from male partners across those females’ ovulatory cycles by concealing ovulation. We build on recent work on female competition to propose and investigate an alternative—the female rivalry hypothesis—that concealed ovulation benefited females by allowing them to avoid aggression from other females. Using an agent-based model of mating behaviour and paternal investment in a human ancestral environment, we did not find strong support for the male investment hypothesis, but found support for the female rivalry hypothesis. Our results suggest that concealed ovulation may have benefitted females in navigating their intrasexual social relationships. More generally, this work implies that explicitly considering female–female interactions may inspire additional insights into female behaviour and physiology.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
This study was pre-registered on the OSF. Open data and analysis code can be found in our OSF repository at https://osf.io/c5pq7/.
NetLogo models can be found in our OSF repository at https://osf.io/c5pq7/.
Dixson, A. F. in Advances in the Study of Behavior Vol. 13 (eds Rosenblatt, J. S. et al.) 63–106 (Academic Press, 1983).
Deschner, T., Heistermann, M., Hodges, K. & Boesch, C. Female sexual swelling size, timing of ovulation, and male behavior in wild West African chimpanzees. Horm. Behav. 46, 204–215 (2004).
Nunn, C. L. The evolution of exaggerated sexual swellings in primates and the graded-signal hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 58, 229–246 (1999).
Alexander, R. D. & Noonan, K. M. Concealment of ovulation, parental care, and human social evolution. in Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (eds. Chagnon, N. & Irons, W.) 436–453 (Duxbury Press, 1979).
Benshoof, L. & Thornhill, R. The evolution of monogamy and concealed ovulation in humans. J. Soc. Biol. Struct. 2, 95–106 (1979).
Burley, N. The evolution of concealed ovulation. Am. Nat. 114, 835–858 (1979).
Burt, A. ‘Concealed ovulation’ and sexual signals in primates. Folia Primatol. 58, 1–6 (1992).
Etkin, W. Social behavioral factors in the emergence of man. Hum. Biol. 35, 299–310 (1963).
Hill, K. Hunting and human evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 11, 521–544 (1982).
Hrdy, S. B. Infanticide among animals: a review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethol. Sociobiol. 1, 13–40 (1979).
Kourtovik, D. Hominization and the loss of the oestrus. J. Hum. Evol. 12, 696 (1983).
Lovejoy, C. O. The origin of man. Science 211, 341–350 (1981).
Miller, E. M. Concealed ovulation as a strategy for increasing per capita paternal investment. Mank. Q. 36, 297–334 (1996).
Pawłowski, B. Loss of oestrus and concealed ovulation in human evolution: the case against the sexual-selection hypothesis. Curr. Anthropol. 40, 257–276 (1999).
Schoröder, I. Concealed ovulation and clandestine copulation: a female contribution to human evolution. Ethol. Sociobiol. 14, 381–389 (1993).
Spuhler, J. N. Continuities and discontinuities in anthropoid-hominid behavioral evolution: bipedal locomotion and sexual receptivity. in Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (eds. Chagnon, N. & Irons, W.) 454–461 (Duxbury Press, 1979).
Strassmann, B. I. Sexual selection, paternal care, and concealed ovulation in humans. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2, 31–40 (1981).
Symons, D. The Evolution of Human Sexuality (Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).
Turke, P. W. Effects of ovulatory concealment and synchrony on protohominid mating systems and parental roles. Evol. Hum. Behav. 5, 33–44 (1984).
Turke, P. W. Concealed ovulation, menstrual synchrony and paternal investment. in Biosocial Perspectives on the Family (ed. Filsinger, E. E.) 119–136 (Sage Publications, 1988).
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J. & Kaukiainen, A. Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggress. Behav. 18, 117–127 (1992).
Campbell, A. A few good men: evolutionary psychology and female adolescent aggression. Ethol. Sociobiol. 16, 99–123 (1995).
Campbell, A. A Mind Of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).
Fisher, M. L. Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, S283–S285 (2004).
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Björkqvist, K. & Peltonen, T. Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11-to 12-year-old children. Aggress. Behav. 14, 403–414 (1988).
McAndrew, F. T. The ‘sword of a woman’: gossip and female aggression. Aggress. Violent Behav. 19, 196–199 (2014).
Rucas, S. L. et al. Female intrasexual competition and reputational effects on attractiveness among the Tsimane of Bolivia. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 40–52 (2006).
Vaillancourt, T. Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20130080 (2013).
Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, J. K. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Dev. 66, 710–722 (1995).
Benenson, J. F. Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).
Hrdy, S. B. “Nepotists” and “altruists”: the behavior of old females among macaques and langur monkeys. in Other Ways of Growing Old: Anthropological Perspectives (eds. Amoss, P. T. & Harrell, S.) 59–76 (Stanford Univ. Press, 1981).
Campbell, A. Female competition: causes, constraints, content, and contexts. J. Sex Res. 41, 16–26 (2004).
Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. Human oestrus. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 991–1000 (2008).
Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008).
Wolfe, L. D. Human evolution and the sexual behavior of female primates. in Understanding Behavior: What Primate Studies Tell Us about Human Behavior (eds. Loy, J. D. & Peters, C. B.) 121–151 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).
Sillen-Tullberg, B. & Moller, A. P. The relationship between concealed ovulation and mating systems in anthropoid primates: a phylogenetic analysis. Am. Nat. 141, 1–25 (1993).
Lobmaier, J. S., Bobst, C. & Probst, F. Can women detect cues to ovulation in other women’s faces? Biol. Lett. 12, 20150638 (2016).
Haselton, M. G. & Gildersleeve, K. Can men detect ovulation? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 87–92 (2011).
Bryant, G. A. & Haselton, M. G. Vocal cues of ovulation in human females. Biol. Lett. 5, 12–15 (2009).
Thornhill, R. et al. MHC, symmetry and body scent attractiveness in men and women (Homo sapiens). Behav. Ecol. 14, 668–678 (2003).
Pipitone, R. N. & Gallup, G. G. Women’s voice attractiveness varies across the menstrual cycle. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 268–274 (2008).
Bobst, C. & Lobmaier, J. S. Men’s preference for the ovulating female is triggered by subtle face shape differences. Horm. Behav. 62, 413–417 (2012).
Hurtado, A. M. & Hill, K. R. Paternal effect on offspring Survivorship among Ache and Hiwi hunter-gatherers: implications for modeling pair-bond stability. in Father–Child Relations Cultural and Biosocial Contexts (ed. Hewlett, B. S.) 31–55 (Routledge, 1992).
Grebe, N. M., Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E. & Thornhill, R. Women’s luteal-phase sexual proceptivity and the functions of extended sexuality. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2106–2110 (2013).
Clutton-Brock, T. Sexual selection in females. Anim. Behav. 77, 3–11 (2009).
Benenson, J. F. The development of human female competition: allies and adversaries. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20130079 (2013).
Campbell, A. Staying alive: evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual aggression. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 203–214 (1999).
Liesen, L. T. in Evolution’s Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women (eds Fisher, M. L. et al.) 43–62 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).
Liesen, L. T. Feminist and evolutionary perspectives of female-female competition, status seeking, and social network formation. in Handbook of Women and Competition (ed. Fisher, M. L.) 71–87 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).
Archer, J. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: a meta-analytic review. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 291–322 (2004).
Björkqvist, K. Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: a review of recent research. Sex Roles 30, 177–188 (1994).
Burbank, V. K. Female aggression in cross-cultural perspective. Behav. Sci. Res. 21, 70–100 (1987).
Hess, N. H. & Hagen, E. H. Sex differences in indirect aggression: psychological evidence from young adults. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 231–245 (2006).
Huchard, E. & Cowlishaw, G. Female–female aggression around mating: an extra cost of sociality in a multimale primate society. Behav. Ecol. 22, 1003–1011 (2011).
Stockley, P. & Bro-Jørgensen, J. Female competition and its evolutionary consequences in mammals. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 86, 341–366 (2011).
Harding, R. M. et al. Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66, 1351–1361 (2000).
Cacioppo, S. & Hatfield, E. Passionate love and sexual desire. in The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality Vol. 7 (eds Bolin, A. & Whelehan, P.) 861–1042 (Wiley, 2015).
De Vleeschouwer, K., Van Elsacker, L. & Leus, K. Multiple breeding females in captive groups of golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas): causes and consequences. Folia Primatol. 72, 1–10 (2001).
Wasser, S. K. & Starling, A. K. Proximate and ultimate causes of reproductive suppression among female yellow baboons at Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. Am. J. Primatol. 16, 97–121 (1988).
Krems, J. A., Neuberg, S. L., Filip-Crawford, G. & Kenrick, D. T. Is she angry? (Sexually desirable) women “see” anger on female faces. Psychol. Sci. 26, 1655–1663 (2015).
Fisher, M. & Cox, A. The influence of female attractiveness on competitor derogation. J. Evol. Psychol. 7, 141–155 (2009).
Campbell, A. & Muncer, S. Sex differences in aggression: social representation and social roles. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33, 233–240 (1994).
Hurst, A. C., Alquist, J. L. & Puts, D. A. Women’s fertility status alters other women’s jealousy and mate guarding. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 191–203 (2017).
Krems, J. A., Neel, R., Neuberg, S. L., Puts, D. A. & Kenrick, D. T. Women selectively guard their (desirable) mates from ovulating women. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 551–573 (2016).
Krems, J. A., Rankin, A. M. & Northover, S. B. Women’s strategic defenses against same-sex aggression: evidence from sartorial behavior. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 770–781 (2020).
Leenaars, L. S., Dane, A. V. & Marini, Z. A. Evolutionary perspective on indirect victimization in adolescence: the role of attractiveness, dating and sexual behavior. Aggress. Behav. 34, 404–415 (2008).
Vaillancourt, T. & Sharma, A. Intolerance of sexy peers: intrasexual competition among women. Aggress. Behav. 37, 569–577 (2011).
Elliot, A. J., Greitemeyer, T. & Pazda, A. D. Women’s use of red clothing as a sexual signal in intersexual interaction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 599–602 (2013).
Pazda, A. D., Prokop, P. & Elliot, A. J. Red and romantic rivalry: viewing another woman in red increases perceptions of sexual receptivity, derogation, and intentions to mate-guard. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40, 1260–1269 (2014).
Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C. & Perrett, D. I. The role of femininity and averageness of voice pitch in aesthetic judgments of women’s voices. Perception 37, 615–623 (2008).
Makhanova, A. & Miller, S. L. Female fertility and male mating: women’s ovulatory cues influence men’s physiology, cognition, and behavior. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 7, 389–400 (2013).
Miller, S. L. & Maner, J. K. Scent of a woman: men’s testosterone responses to olfactory ovulation cues. Psychol. Sci. 21, 276–283 (2010).
Puts, D. A. et al. Women’s attractiveness changes with estradiol and progesterone across the ovulatory cycle. Horm. Behav. 63, 13–19 (2013).
Doty, R. L., Ford, M., Preti, G. & Huggins, G. R. Changes in the intensity and pleasantness of human vaginal odors during the menstrual cycle. Science 190, 1316–1318 (1975).
Kuukasjärvi, S. et al. Attractiveness of women’s body odors over the menstrual cycle: the role of oral contraceptives and receiver sex. Behav. Ecol. 15, 579–584 (2004).
Roberts, S. C. et al. Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, S270–S272 (2004).
Silk, J. B., Alberts, S. C. & Altmann, J. Patterns of coalition formation by adult female baboons in Amboseli, Kenya. Anim. Behav. 67, 573–582 (2004).
Thornhill, R. et al. Major histocompatibility complex genes, symmetry, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behav. Ecol. 14, 668–678 (2003).
Baenninger, M. A., Baenninger, R. & Houle, D. Attractiveness, attentiveness, and perceived male shortage: their influence on perceptions of other females. Evol. Hum. Behav. 14, 293–303 (1993).
Bullivant, S. B. et al. Women’s sexual experience during the menstrual cycle: identification of the sexual phase by noninvasive measurement of luteinizing hormone. J. Sex Res. 41, 82–93 (2004).
Cantú, S. M. et al. Fertile and selectively flirty: women’s behavior toward men changes across the ovulatory cycle. Psychol. Sci. 25, 431–438 (2014).
Dawson, S. J., Suschinsky, K. D. & Lalumière, M. L. Sexual fantasies and viewing times across the menstrual cycle: a diary study. Arch. Sex. Behav. 41, 173–183 (2012).
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M. & Li, N. P. Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 292–305 (2012).
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C. & Li, N. P. Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: hormonal influences on consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 37, 921–934 (2011).
Durante, K. M., Li, N. P. & Haselton, M. G. Changes in women’s choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 1451–1460 (2008).
Smith, M. J. L. et al. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc. Biol. Sci. 273, 135–140 (2006).
Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E. & Christensen, P. N. Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychol. Sci. 15, 203–207 (2004).
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A. & Cousins, A. J. Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 151–163 (2007).
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R. & Garver-Apgar, C. E. Women’s sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 272, 2023–2027 (2005).
Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. Hormonal correlates of women’s mid-cycle preference for the scent of symmetry. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 223–232 (2008).
Guéguen, N. Menstrual cycle phases and female receptivity to a courtship solicitation: an evaluation in a nightclub. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 351–355 (2009).
Guéguen, N. Makeup and menstrual cycle: near ovulation, women use more cosmetics. Psychol. Rec. 62, 541–548 (2012).
Guéguen, N. Gait and menstrual cycle: ovulating women use sexier gaits and walk slowly ahead of men. Gait Posture 35, 621–624 (2012).
Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A. & Frederick, D. A. Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: near ovulation, women dress to impress. Horm. Behav. 51, 40–45 (2007).
Maner, J. K. & McNulty, J. K. Attunement to the fertility status of same-sex rivals: women’s testosterone responses to olfactory ovulation cues. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34, 412–418 (2013).
Lucas, M. & Koff, E. How conception risk affects competition and cooperation with attractive women and men. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34, 16–22 (2013).
Lukaszewski, A. W. & Roney, J. R. Estimated hormones predict women’s mate preferences for dominant personality traits. Pers. Individ. Dif. 47, 191–196 (2009).
Roney, J. R. & Simmons, Z. L. Women’s estradiol predicts preference for facial cues of men’s testosterone. Horm. Behav. 53, 14–19 (2008).
Roney, J. R. & Simmons, Z. L. Hormonal predictors of sexual motivation in natural menstrual cycles. Horm. Behav. 63, 636–645 (2013).
Roney, J. R., Simmons, Z. L. & Gray, P. B. Changes in estradiol predict within-women shifts in attraction to facial cues of men’s testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 742–749 (2011).
Piccoli, V., Foroni, F. & Carnaghi, A. Comparing group dehumanization and intra-sexual competition among normally ovulating women and hormonal contraceptive users. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39, 1600–1609 (2013).
Pillsworth, E. G., Haselton, M. G. & Buss, D. M. Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire. J. Sex. Res. 41, 55–65 (2004).
Saad, G. & Stenstrom, E. Calories, beauty, and ovulation: the effects of the menstrual cycle on food and appearance-related consumption. J. Consum. Psychol. 22, 102–113 (2012).
Zhuang, J.-Y. & Wang, J.-X. Women ornament themselves for intrasexual competition near ovulation, but for intersexual attraction in luteal phase. PLoS ONE 9, e106407 (2014).
Necka, E. A. et al. Women’s attention to and memory for fertile- and non-fertile phase women across the menstrual cycle.Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 4, 283–305 (2018).
Necka, E. A., Puts, D. A., Dimitroff, S. J. & Norman, G. J. Other women’s fertility moderates female resource distribution across the menstrual cycle. Evol. Hum. Behav. 37, 387–391 (2016).
Muller, M. N. & Wrangham, R. W. Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans (Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).
Bar-Tal, D. & Saxe, L. Physical attractiveness and its relationship to sex-role stereotyping. Sex Roles 2, 123–133 (1976).
Buss, D. M. Sexual strategies theory: historical origins and current status. J. Sex Res. 35, 19–31 (1998).
Liston, D. D. & Rahimi, R. in Geographies of Girlhood: Identities In-between (eds Bettis, P. J. & Adams, N. G.) 211–230 (Routledge, 2005).
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D.Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323–370 (2001).
Hess, N. C. & Hagen, E. Informational Warfare: The Evolution of Female Coalitions and Gossip (Univ. California, 2006).
Hess, N. H. Informational warfare: coalitional gossiping as a strategy for within-group aggression. in The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition (ed. Fisher, M. L.) 223–246 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).
Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159 (1992).
Treas, J. & Giesen, D. Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. J. Marriage Fam. 62, 48–60 (2000).
Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G. & Hannett, C. A. Extradyadic romantic involvement: moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles 31, 1–22 (1994).
Blow, A. J. & Hartnett, K. Infidelity in committed relationships I: a methodological review. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 31, 183–216 (2005).
Dorjahn, V. R. The factor of polygyny in African demography. in Continuity and Change in African Cultures (eds. Bascom, W. R. & Herskovits., M. J.) 87–112 (Univ. Chicago Press, 1959).
Goody, J. Polygyny, economy, and the role of women. in The Character of Kinship (ed. Goody, J.) 175–190 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973).
Baumeister, R. F. & Vohs, K. D. Sexual economics: sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 339–363 (2004).
Benenson, J. F. et al. Social exclusion: more important to human females than males. PLoS ONE 8, e55851 (2013).
McAndrew, F. T. & Milenkovic, M. A. Of tabloids and family secrets: the evolutionary psychology of gossip. J. Appl. Soc. Pyschol. 32, 1064–1082 (2002).
Fernandez-Duque, E., Valeggia, C. R. & Mendoza, S. P. The biology of paternal care in human and nonhuman primates. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 38, 115–130 (2009).
Buss, D. M. & Schmitt, D. P. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100, 204–232 (1993).
Scelza, B. A. et al. Patterns of paternal investment predict cross-cultural variation in jealous response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 20–26 (2020).
Greiling, H. & Buss, D. M. Women’s sexual strategies: the hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Pers. Individ. Dif. 28, 929–963 (2000).
Schmitt, D. P. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, 247–275 (2005).
Anderson, K. G. How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Curr. Anthropol. 47, 513–520 (2006).
Scelza, B. A. Female choice and extra-pair paternity in a traditional human population. Biol. Lett. 7, 889–891 (2011).
Wiessner, P. Parent–offspring conflict in marriage: implications for social evolution and material culture among the Ju/’Hoansi bushmen. in Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution (ed. Shennan, S.) 251–263 (Univ. California Press, 2009).
Starkweather, K. E. & Hames, R. A survey of non-classical polyandry. Hum. Nat. 23, 149–172 (2012).
Schmitt, D. P. & Rohde, P. A. The human polygyny index and its ecological correlates: testing sexual selection and life history theory at the cross-national level. Soc. Sci. Q. 94, 1159–1184 (2013).
Vervaecke, H., Stevens, J. & Van Elsacker, L. Interfering with others: female–female reproductive competition in Pan paniscus. in Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Primates: New Perspectives and Directions (ed. Jones, C. B.) 231–253 (American Society of Primatologists, 2003).
Haselton, M. G. & Gildersleeve, K. Human ovulation cues. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 7, 120–125 (2016).
Wilensky, U. NetLogo (Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern Univ., 1999).
Dunbar, R. I. M. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behav. Brain Sci. 16, 681–694 (1993).
Marlowe, F. W. Hunter-gatherers and human evolution. Evol. Anthropol. 14, 54–67 (2005).
Sear, R. & Mace, R. Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 1–18 (2008).
Broekmans, F. J., Knauff, E. A. H., te Velde, E. R., Macklon, N. S. & Fauser, B. C. Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 18, 58–65 (2007).
R Core Development Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016).
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2009).
Beall, A. T. & Schaller, M. Affective implications of the mating/parenting trade-off: short-term mating motives and desirability as a short-term mate predict less intense tenderness responses to infants. Pers. Individ. Dif. 68, 112–117 (2014).
Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A. The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 573–587 (2000).
Kaplan, H. S. & Gangestad, S. W. Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. in The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (ed. Buss, D.) 68–95 (Wiley, 2005).
Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992).
Bisdee, J. T., James, W. P. & Shaw, M. A. Changes in energy expenditure during the menstrual cycle. Br. J. Nutr. 61, 187–199 (1989).
Jasienska, G. The Fragile Wisdom: An Evolutionary View on Women’s Biology and Health (Harvard Univ. Press, 2013).
Price, P. N., Duncan, S. L. & Levin, R. J. Oxygen consumption of human endometrium during the menstrual cycle measured in vitro using an oxygen electrode. J. Reprod. Fertil. 63, 185–192 (1981).
Manocha, S., Choudhuri, G. & Tandon, B. N. A study of dietary intake in pre- and post-menstrual period. Hum. Nutr. Appl. Nutr. 40, 213–216 (1986).
Webb, P. 24-hour energy expenditure and the menstrual cycle. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 44, 614–619 (1986).
Ellison, P. T., Panter-Brick, C., Lipson, S. F. & O’Rourke, M. T. The ecological context of human ovarian function. Hum. Reprod. 8, 2248–2258 (1993).
Kramer, P. A. The costs of human locomotion: maternal investment in child transport. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 107, 71–85 (1998).
Cantoni, D. & Brown, R. E. Paternal investment and reproductive success in the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Anim. Behav. 54, 377–386 (1997).
Lunn, P. G., Austin, S., Prentice, A. M. & Whitehead, R. G. The effect of improved nutrition on plasma prolactin concentrations and postpartum infertility in lactating Gambian women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 39, 227–235 (1984).
Mitani, J. C. & Watts, D. The evolution of non-maternal caretaking among anthropoid primates: do helpers help? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40, 213–220 (1997).
Gettler, L. T. Direct male care and hominin evolution: why male–child interaction is more than a nice social idea. Am. Anthropol. 112, 7–21 (2010).
Miller, G., Tybur, J. M. & Jordan, B. D. Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus? Evol. Hum. Behav. 28, 375–381 (2007).
Wilcox, A. J., Dunson, D. B., Weinberg, C. R., Trussell, J. & Baird, D. D. Likelihood of conception with a single act of intercourse: providing benchmark rates for assessment of post-coital contraceptives. Contraception 63, 211–215 (2001).
Betzig, L. Causes of conjugal dissolution: a cross-cultural study. Curr. Anthropol. 30, 654–676 (1989).
Davies, A. P. C., Shackelford, T. K. & Hass, R. G. Sex differences in perceptions of benefits and costs of mate poaching. Pers. Individ. Dif. 49, 441–445 (2010).
Perlini, A. H. & Boychuk, T. L. Social influence, desirability and relationship investment: the effects of resourcefulness and sexual permissiveness. Soc. Behav. Pers. 34, 593–602 (2006).
Buss, D. M. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12, 1–14 (1989).
Buss, D. M. Sexual strategies: a journey into controversy. Psychol. Inq. 14, 219–226 (2003).
Cashdan, E. Attracting mates: effects of paternal investment on mate attraction strategies. Ethol. Sociobiol. 14, 1–23 (1993).
Simpson, J. A. & Gangestad, S. W. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J. Pers. 60, 31–51 (1992).
Draper, P. & Harpending, H. Father absence and reproductive strategy: an evolutionary perspective. J. Anthropol. Res. 38, 255–273 (1982).
Werner, N. E. & Crick, N. R. Relational aggression and social-psychological adjustment in a college sample. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 108, 615–623 (1999).
Archer, J. & Coyne, S. M. An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 9, 212–230 (2005).
Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O. & Brown, J. H. The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 2195–2203 (2007).
Bird, D. W., Bird, R. B., Codding, B. F. & Zeanah, D. W. Variability in the organization and size of hunter-gatherer groups: foragers do not live in small-scale societies. J. Hum. Evol. 131, 96–108 (2019).
Hill, K. R., Wood, B. M., Baggio, J., Hurtado, A. M. & Boyd, R. T. Hunter-gatherer inter-band interaction rates: implications for cumulative culture. PLoS ONE 9, e102806 (2014).
Hill, R. A., Bentley, R. A. & Dunbar, R. I. M. Network scaling reveals consistent fractal pattern in hierarchical mammalian societies. Biol. Lett. 4, 748–751 (2008).
Dunbar, R. I. M. & Sosis, R. Optimising human community sizes. Evol. Hum. Behav. 39, 106–111 (2018).
Lehmann, J., Lee, P. C. & Dunbar, R. I. M. Unravelling the function of community-level organization. in Lucy to Language: The Benchmark Papers (eds. Dunbar, R. I. M., Gamble, C. & Gowlett, J. A. J.) 245–276 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Aisha Bradshaw.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 The paternal investment for Revealers and Concealers, after 10,000 time steps in the model.
Violin plots summarise the results of 10,000 independent model runs, bolded points are mean averages, and error bars are standard errors. Concealers consistently outcompete Revealers only in Experiment 3, under conditions of female aggression towards ovulating rivals. See Supplementary Table 5 for inferential statistics.
For both (a) reproductive success and (b) paternal investment, Concealers have an advantage over Revealers regardless of the fertility multiplier for Revealers. Points are mean averages across 100 independent model runs per parameter value, and error bars are standard errors. See Supplementary Table 6 for inferential statistics.
For both (a) reproductive success and (b) paternal investment, Concealers have an advantage over Revealers regardless of the radius of competition or mate search. Points are mean averages across 100 independent model runs per parameter value, and error bars are standard errors. See Supplementary Table 6 for inferential statistics.
We vary the offspring investment amount (units) required to successful have a child in the model, the number of individuals in the model (population size), the proportion of females in the population, the proportion of Concealers within the female population, and the size of the square world (lattice width is equal to lattice height). In all cases, Concealers have an advantage over Revealers. Points are mean averages across 100 independent model runs per parameter value, and error bars are standard errors. See Supplementary Table 6 for inferential statistics.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Varying the decay of aggression damage (that is, the speed at which females heal from aggression), where 0 means females never heal, and 1 means females heal immediately.
For both (a) reproductive success and (b) paternal investment, Concealers only have an advantage when the decay of aggression damage is less than or equal to around 0.6. Points are mean averages across 100 independent model runs per parameter value, and error bars are standard errors. See Supplementary Table 6 for inferential statistics.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Tile plots summarizing the Concealer advantage with varying costs of aggression, to both self and other (target).
As tiles become increasingly beige, Concealers have more of an advantage (that is, positive raw difference in either number of children or paternal investment units). For both (a) reproductive success and (b) paternal investment, Concealers only have an advantage when the cost to self is low (< 1), and the cost to other is positive (> 0). Values are averaged over 100 independent model runs per parameter value. See Supplementary Table 6 for inferential statistics.
Extended Data Fig. 7 The number of aggression acts Concealers and Revealers received after 10,000 time steps in the model, across 20 different model runs all with the default parameters for Experiment 2, where females aggressed towards the most attractive female nearby females (not necessarily the ovulating females).
Concealers received 294 acts of aggression on average (SD = 131). Revealers received 308 acts of aggression on average (SD = 127), significantly more than Concealers (GLMM; p = 0.01). Aggression amounts appear normally distributed, with few outliers.
Extended Data Fig. 8 The number of aggression acts each Revealer received after 10,000 time steps in the model, across 20 different model runs all with the default parameters for Experiment 3, where females aggressed towards the nearby ovulating females.
Concealers were never the targets of aggression. Revealers received 941 acts of aggression on average (SD = 312). Aggression amounts appear normally distributed, with few outliers.
About this article
Cite this article
Krems, J.A., Claessens, S., Fales, M.R. et al. An agent-based model of the female rivalry hypothesis for concealed ovulation in humans. Nat Hum Behav 5, 726–735 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01038-9
This article is cited by
A Preliminary Investigation Into Individual Differences that Predict Men’s Preferences for Cues to Fertility in Women’s Faces
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2023)