Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40302432›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025

Strategies, costs and counter-strategies to sexual coercion.

Nikolaos Smit

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Nikolaos SmitInstitut des Sciences de l'Évolution, Université de Montpellier, Place Eugène Bataillon, Montpellier, 34090, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0440-1998

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sexual conflict, the conflict between the evolutionary interests of females and males over mating, occasionally results in the evolution of traits favourable for one sex and adverse for the other. In this context, males can use sexual coercion to increase their mating success, at the expense of their female targets' mate choice. An increasing number of studies highlight a great diversity of male and female behaviours that serve as strategies and counter-strategies, respectively, to sexual coercion. Previous studies have reviewed the literature on infanticide but not the literature on forced copulation, sexual harassment, intimidation or punishment. This qualitative review synthesises the empirical evidence and draws a unified framework of the ecology of sexual coercion across animals, presenting male sexually coercive strategies and co-evolved female counter-strategies that can reduce coercion and its fitness costs. Using examples from insects to humans, it shows that different strategies of sexual coercion can lead to the evolution of similar counter-strategies. These counter-strategies include female promiscuity, deception of males (e.g. concealed ovulation or pseudo-oestrus), avoidance of certain males and association with others for protection, female aggregation to dilute coercion and ultimately physical resistance by single or allied females. Extending previous work, this review provides compelling evidence of sexually antagonistic coevolution amid sexual coercion. It also calls for future work to clarify, first, which individual traits are linked to greater coercion rates in males and a higher likelihood of receiving coercion in females and, second, any causal relationships between different strategies of sexual coercion and the evolution of different social and mating systems.

Indexed as

CoercionSexual Behavior, AnimalAnimalsBiological EvolutionFemaleHumansMalecoercion costsfemale counter‐strategiessexual coercionsexual conflictsexual harassment

Identifiers

PMID40302432
PMCPMC12227793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.