| Literature DB >> 29209243 |
Piotr Sorokowski1, Agnieszka Sorokowska1,2, Marina Butovskaya3, Maciej Karwowski1, Agata Groyecka1, Bogdan Wojciszke4, Bogusław Pawłowski5.
Abstract
As love seems to be universal, researchers have attempted to find its biological basis. However, no studies till date have shown its direct association with reproductive success, which is broadly known to be a good measure of fitness. Here, we show links between love, as defined by the Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love, and reproductive success among the Hadza-traditional hunter-gatherer population. We found that commitment and reproductive success were positively and consistently related in both sexes, with number of children showing negative and positive associations with intimacy and passion, respectively, only among women. Our study may shed new light on the meaning of love in humans' evolutionary past, especially in traditional hunter-gatherer societies in which individuals, not their parents, were responsible for partner choice. We suggest that passion and commitment may be the key factors that increase fitness, and therefore, that selection promoted love in human evolution. However, further studies in this area are recommended.Entities:
Keywords: Hadza; commitment; human evolution; hunter-gatherers; number of children; passion; romantic (love); sexual selection
Year: 2017 PMID: 29209243 PMCID: PMC5702490 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the main variables.
| Children total | 0 | 12 | 2.59 | 2.38 | 2.60 (2.39) | 2.57 (2.40) | 0.51 | −0.02 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.26 |
| Age | 16 | 70 | 36.64 | 12.43 | 39.22 (12.74) | 33.83 (11.53) | 1 | −0.11 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.25 |
| BMI | 14.79 | 27.38 | 20.56 | 1.98 | 20.58 (1.77) | 20.54 (2.20) | 1 | −0.10 | 0.03 | 0.002 | |
| Intimacy | 1 | 3 | 2.54 | 0.38 | 2.59 (0.35) | 2.50 (0.41) | 1 | 0.43 | 0.49 | ||
| Passion | 1.17 | 3 | 2.56 | 0.36 | 2.60 (0.30) | 2.53 (0.41) | 1 | 0.57 | |||
| Commitment | 1 | 3 | 2.53 | 0.38 | 2.56 (0.35) | 2.50 (0.42) | 1 |
N = 159. In the case of correlation coefficients Spearman's rho are presented in all cases except the correlations between age and BMI—in this case Pearson's r is given;
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.
Figure 1Sex differences in love components.
Love factors as predictors of total number of children.
| Intercept | 0.44(0.22) | 1.55 | – | 0.82(0.07) | 2.27 | – |
| Sex | 0.13(0.07) | 1.14 | 0.11 | 0.12(0.07) | 1.13 | 0.11 |
| Age | 0.46(0.07) | 1.58 | 0.50 | 0.46(0.06) | 1.58 | 0.50 |
| BMI | −0.02(0.06) | 0.98 | –0.01 | −0.003(0.05) | 1.00 | −0.01 |
| Intimacy | −0.04(0.09) | 0.96 | –0.07 | −0.03(0.08) | 0.97 | −0.09 |
| Passion | 0.08(0.11) | 1.09 | 0.05 | 0.06(0.09) | 1.07 | 0.04 |
| Commitment | 0.23(0.11) | 1.26 | 0.19 | 0.24(0.11) | 1.27 | 0.21 |
| Sex × Intimacy | – | – | – | −0.23(0.08) | 0.80 | −0.23 |
| Sex × Passion | – | – | – | 0.22(0.09) | 1.24 | 0.24 |
| Sex × Commitment | – | – | – | −0.05(0.10) | 0.96 | −0.05 |
| Deviance ( | 205.55( | 189.23 ( | ||||
| Model A vs. B | 16.3( | |||||
| 0.27 | 0.30 | |||||
N = 159. Sex coded: Men = −1, Women = 1. All predictors except sex were introduced to the models as z-scored variables. All unstandardized coefficients (β-values with robust standard errors) should be read as the expected increase or decrease (in case of positive and negative coefficient values, respectively) of the dependent variable (i.e., the number of children) in log units for a one-unit increase in predictor. For a more convenient interpretation, we also present results as incident rate ratios (ExpB), showing the percent change in incident rate of number of children related to a unit change in predictors. β- and R.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001.
Figure 2Interactions between sex and love aspects on number of children. (A) demonstrates different effects of intimacy on number of children among women and men: the effect is negative and significant among women (B = −0.26, SE = 0.11, p = 0.02), but not among men (B = 0.15, SE = 0.08, p = 0.07). (B) shows a positive effect of passion on number of children among women (B = 0.24, SE = 0.12, p = 0.05), but not among men (B = −0.16, SE = 0.12, p = 0.19). (C) illustrates positive effects of commitment on number of children; the effect is significant among men (B = 0.27, SE = 0.12, p = 0.02) but not women (B = 0.17, SE = 0.16; p = 0.30).
Love factors as predictors of mortality rate.
| Intercept | 2.41(0.19) | 11.15 | – | 2.38(0.20) | 10.85 | – |
| Sex | 0.10(0.18) | 1.11 | 0.09 | 0.10(0.19) | 1.10 | 0.07 |
| Age | 0.23(0.17) | 1.26 | 0.25 | 0.21(0.17) | 1.23 | 0.24 |
| BMI | −0.10(0.20) | 0.90 | −0.04 | −0.11(0.19) | 0.90 | −0.04 |
| Intimacy | 0.02(0.17) | 1.02 | −0.003 | 0.04(0.17) | 1.05 | −0.003 |
| Passion | −0.23(0.18) | 0.80 | −0.03 | −0.18(0.17) | 0.83 | −0.02 |
| Commitment | 0.27(0.18) | 1.31 | 0.12 | 0.30(0.18) | 1.35 | 0.14 |
| Sex × Intimacy | – | – | – | −0.04(0.17) | 0.96 | −0.15 |
| Sex × Passion | – | – | – | −0.10(0.17) | 0.91 | 0.04 |
| Sex × Commitment | – | – | – | −0.07(0.19) | 0.93 | 0.009 |
| Deviance ( | 3, 963.23( | 3,931.70 ( | ||||
| Model A vs. B | 31.53( | |||||
| 0.09 | 0.10 | |||||
Sex coded: Men = −1, Women = 1. Dependent variable (mortality rate) calculated on a 0–100 scale, with 0 = 0%, 100 = 100%. All predictors except sex were introduced to the models as z-scored variables. All unstandardized coefficients (B-values with robust standard errors) should be read as the expected increase or decrease (in case of positive and negative coefficient values, respectively) of the dependent variable (i.e., mortality rate) in log units for a one-unit increase in predictor. For a more convenient interpretation, we also present results as incident rate ratios (ExpB), showing the percent change in incident rate of number of children related to a unit change in predictors. β- and R.
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001.