Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:09:09.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Copulatory Urgency

from Part II - Copulatory Adaptations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Arial Bloshinsky  and
Valerie G. Starratt
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

Copulatory urgency is produced by a psychological adaptation that evolved to solve the adaptive problem of sexual conflict resulting from the use of conditional mating strategies. Deployment of a long-term mating strategy, in which individuals invest substantially in the formation and maintenance of an enduring, committed relationship with one partner, puts those individuals at risk of loss of that investment (and more) should their long-term partner pursue a conflicting mating strategy. Consequently, people have evolved motivations, such as copulatory urgency, which protect against that loss. As the potential costs of a partner’s use of a conflicting mating strategy are sex-specific, so too are the manifestations of copulatory urgency. Among men, for whom paternity uncertainty, sperm competition, and cuckoldry are of primary evolutionary concern, copulatory urgency is demonstrated in response to increased risk of a partner’s sexual infidelity and results in behaviors that functioned ancestrally to reduce the risk of cuckoldry. Women, on the other hand, are not subject to maternal uncertainty or cuckoldry. However, women are more likely to be reliant on their long-term male partner’s investment of resources into the ongoing relationship, and so are more likely to demonstrate copulatory urgency and associated motivated behaviors when they are at particular risk of loss of that investment and when the loss of that investment would be particularly costly.

Keywords

copulatory urgencycuckoldrysperm competitionsexual coercionmate retention
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 312 - 322
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbaro, N., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Solving problems of partner infidelity: Individual mate retention, coalitional mate retention, and in-pair copulation frequency. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbaro, N., Pham, M. N., Shackelford, T. K., & Zeigler‐Hill, V. (2016). Insecure romantic attachment dimensions and frequency of mate retention behaviors. Personal Relationships, 23(3), 605–618.Google Scholar
Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G. (2020). Abusive men are driven by paternal uncertainty. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239–260.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2017). Sexual conflict in human mating. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 307–313.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). The Mate Retention Inventory-Short Form (MRI-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 322–334.Google Scholar
Butte, N. F., & King, J. C. (2005). Energy requirements during pregnancy and lactation. Public Health Nutrition, 8, 1010–1027.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Euclidean distances discriminatively predict short-term and long-term attraction to potential mates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 442–450.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1082–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Why do humans form long-term mateships? An evolutionary game-theoretic model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 1–39.Google Scholar
DeLecce, T., Barbaro, N., Mohamedally, D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Husband’s reaction to his wife’s sexual rejection is predicted by the time she spends with her male friends but not her male coworkers. Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 1–5.Google Scholar
Fallis, E. E., Rehman, U. S., Woody, E. Z., & Purdon, C. (2016). The longitudinal association of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(7), 822–831.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151–163.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Haselton, M. G. (2015). Human estrus: Implications for relationship science. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.Google Scholar
Geller, S. E., Koch, A. R., Garland, C. E., MacDonald, E. J., Storey, F., & Lawton, B. (2018). A global view of severe maternal morbidity: moving beyond maternal mortality. Reproductive Health, 15, 98.Google Scholar
Geller, S. E., Rosenberg, D., Cox, S. M., Brown, M. L., Simonson, L., Driscoll, C. A., & Kilpatrick, S. J. (2004). The continuum of maternal morbidity and mortality: Factors associated with severity. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191, 939–944.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Sexual coercion and forced in-pair copulation as sperm competition tactics in humans. Human Nature, 17, 265–282.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Platek, S. M., Starratt, V. G., & McKibbin, W. F. (2007). Sperm competition in humans: Implications for male sexual psychology, physiology, anatomy, and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 18(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., Schmitt, D. P., & LaMunyon, C. W. (2005). Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: A preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 749–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzaga, G. C., Haselton, M. G., Smurda, J., Davies, M.-S., & Poore, J. C. (2008). Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, D. A. (1994). The morbidity and mortality of pregnancy: Still risky business. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 170, 1489–1494.Google ScholarPubMed
Hughes, S. M., Aung, T., Harrison, M. A., LaFayette, J. N., & Gallup, G. G. (2021). Experimental evidence for sex differences in sexual variety preferences: Support for the Coolidge effect in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 495–509.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.Google Scholar
Kaestle, C. E. (2009). Sexual insistence and disliked sexual activities in young adulthood: Differences by gender and relationship characteristics. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(1), 33–39.Google Scholar
Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder: evolutionary psychological perspectives on men’s partner-directed violence. Review of General Psychology, 13, 327–334.Google Scholar
Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G., Al-Shawaf, L., Janiak, M. C., & Akunebu, S. P. (2016). Integrating molecular genetics and evolutionary psychology: Sexual jealousy and the androgen receptor (AR) gene. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.021Google Scholar
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468–489.Google Scholar
Lopes, G. S., Meneses, G. O., Cataldo, Q. F., Segundo, D. S. A., Fink, B., & Shackelford, T. K. (2019). Individual differences in men’s use of partner-directed insults and sexual coercion: Replication and extension in a South American sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 150, 109480. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.023Google Scholar
Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science, 341(6145), 526–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magginetti, J., & Pillsworth, E. G. (2020). Women’s sexual strategies in pregnancy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(1), 76–86.Google Scholar
McKibbin, W. F., Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2011). Perceived risk of female infidelity moderates the relationship between objective risk of female infidelity and sexual coercion in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125(3), 370–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNulty, J. K., Wenner, C. A., & Fisher, T. D. (2016). Longitudinal associations among relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85–97.Google Scholar
Oda, R., Okuda, A., Takeda, M., & Hiraishi, K. (2014). Provision or good genes? Menstrual cycle shifts in women’s preferences for short-term and long-term mates’ altruistic behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 888–900.Google Scholar
Pham, M. N., DeLecce, T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Sperm competition in marriage: Semen displacement, male rivals, and spousal discrepancy in sexual interest. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Røsand, G. M. B., Slinning, K., Røysamb, E., & Tambs, K. (2014). Relationship dissatisfaction and other risk factors for future relationship dissolution: A population-based study of 18,523 couples. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49(1), 109–119.Google Scholar
Scelza, B. A., Prall, S. P., Blumenfield, T., Crittenden, A. N., Gurven, M., Kline, M., … & McElreath, R. (2020). Patterns of paternal investment predict cross-cultural variation in jealous response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 20–26.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85–104.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology: Foundations (pp. 294–316). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2004). Men’s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and initial validation of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 541–556.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., McKibbin, W. F., & Starratt, V. G. (2007). Absence makes the adaptations grow fonder: Proportion of time apart from partner, male sexual psychology, and sperm competition in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(2), 214–220.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Pound, N. (Eds.). (2006). Sperm competition in humans. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Simmons, Z. L., & Roney, J. R. (2011). Variation in CAG repeat length of the androgen receptor gene predicts variables associated with intrasexual competitiveness in human males. Hormones and Behavior, 60, 306–312.Google Scholar
Starratt, V. G., Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., McKibbin, W. F., & Stewart-Williams, S. (2008). Men’s partner-directed insults and sexual coercion in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 315–323.Google Scholar
Starratt, V. G., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Mate value both positively and negatively predicts intentions to commit an infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 18–22.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection (Vol. 136). Harvard, MA: Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×