The results of Study 1 and Study 2 show support for the outgroup-mating hypothesis. Conception-risk positively predicts attraction to outgroup men but not ingroup men. No differences in women’s evaluations of short-term versus long-term partners were found however. Perhaps because the males I used were only moderately attractive, it was difficult for women to discern between objectively good short-term or long-term mates. Had I used photographed males of higher attractiveness levels, I may have found differences in women’s evaluations of short-term versus long-term mates as a function of conception-risk and possibly the male’s presumed group membership as well.
Findings specifically from Study 2 demonstrate as conception-risk increases, attraction to ingroup men decreases. These findings may seem curious at first. However post hoc theorizing has led to a possibility of why such effects would emerge. Perhaps, there were group-level selection pressures selecting specifically against infidelity within the ingroup. If sexual infidelity were to have occurred within the ingroup, and discovered, the act could have impacted the cohesiveness of the group. As the group was a necessary element for survival for early hominids (Johnson & Earl, 1988), any loss of cohesion and cooperation could have been the difference between life and death. Evolutionary selective pressures at the group level may possibly be at work, selecting specifically against infidelity within the ingroup to maintain intragroup harmony and preservation of a unified unit. Moreover, if paired ancestral females were motivated to cuckold their primary mate, engaging in infidelity with members of their ingroup to satisfy such a motivation could have been easily discovered, resulting in decreased partner support or even death(Wilson & Daly, 1995; Shackelford et al., 2002). Perceiving individual ingroup men as less attractive as reproductive partners at periods of high-fertility could have guarded against ancestral females potentially extra-pair mating with ingroup males and risking their position within the group.
From a study linked here: https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/vie...ttpsredir=1&article=2313&context=utk_gradthes
Findings specifically from Study 2 demonstrate as conception-risk increases, attraction to ingroup men decreases. These findings may seem curious at first. However post hoc theorizing has led to a possibility of why such effects would emerge. Perhaps, there were group-level selection pressures selecting specifically against infidelity within the ingroup. If sexual infidelity were to have occurred within the ingroup, and discovered, the act could have impacted the cohesiveness of the group. As the group was a necessary element for survival for early hominids (Johnson & Earl, 1988), any loss of cohesion and cooperation could have been the difference between life and death. Evolutionary selective pressures at the group level may possibly be at work, selecting specifically against infidelity within the ingroup to maintain intragroup harmony and preservation of a unified unit. Moreover, if paired ancestral females were motivated to cuckold their primary mate, engaging in infidelity with members of their ingroup to satisfy such a motivation could have been easily discovered, resulting in decreased partner support or even death(Wilson & Daly, 1995; Shackelford et al., 2002). Perceiving individual ingroup men as less attractive as reproductive partners at periods of high-fertility could have guarded against ancestral females potentially extra-pair mating with ingroup males and risking their position within the group.
From a study linked here: https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/vie...ttpsredir=1&article=2313&context=utk_gradthes
