ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2013
Multi-level sexual selection: individual and family-level selection for mating success in a historical human population.
Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indirect genetic effects among neighbors promote cooperation and accelerate adaptation in a small-scale human society.Science advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Synergy from reproductive division of labor and genetic complexity drive the evolution of sex.Journal of biological physics · 2018Article
- The transition to modernity and chronic disease: mismatch and natural selection.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2018Review
- Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?F1000Research · 2016Review
- Individual fitness and phenotypic selection in age-structured populations with constant growth rates.Ecology · 2014Article
- A demographic transition altered the strength of selection for fitness and age-specific survival and fertility in a 19th century American population.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2013Article
- Selection gradients, the opportunity for selection, and the coefficient of determination.The American naturalist · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Precopulatory sexual selection is the association between fitness and traits associated with mate acquisition. Although sexual selection is generally recognized to be a powerful evolutionary force, most investigations are limited to characters belonging to individuals. A broader multilevel perspective acknowledges that individual fitness can be affected by aspects of mating success that are characters of groups, such as families. Parental mating success in polygynous or polyandrous human societies may exemplify traits under group-level sexual selection. Using fitness measures that account for age-structure, I measure multilevel selection for mate number over 55 years in a human population with declining rates of polygyny. Sexual selection had three components: individual-level selection for ever-mating (whether an individual mated) and individual- and family-level selection for polyandry and polygyny. Family- and individual-level selection for polygyny was equally strong, three times stronger than family-level selection for polyandry and more than an order of magnitude stronger than individual-level selection for polyandry. However, individual-level selection for polyandry and polygyny was more effective at explaining relative fitness variance than family-level selection. Selection for ever-mating was the most important source of sexual selection for fitness; variation for ever-mating explained 23% of relative fitness variance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.