↓ Skip to main content

Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Letters, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
24 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women
Published in
Biology Letters, February 2015
DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0977
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael Wlodarski, John Manning, R I M Dunbar

Abstract

In all comparative analyses, humans always fall on the borderline between obligate monogamy and polygamy. Here, we use behavioural indices (sociosexuality) and anatomical indices (prenatal testosterone exposure indexed by 2D : 4D digit ratio) from three human populations to show that this may be because there are two distinct phenotypes in both sexes. While males are more promiscuous and display higher prenatal testosterone exposure than females overall, our analyses also suggest that the within-sex variation of these variables is best described by two underlying mixture models, suggesting the presence of two phenotypes with a monogamous/promiscuous ratio that slightly favours monogamy in females and promiscuity in males. The presence of two phenotypes implies that mating strategy might be under complex frequency-dependent selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Japan 2 2%
Czechia 2 2%
Austria 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 101 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 26%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Master 10 9%
Professor 8 7%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 10 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 36%
Psychology 25 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 18 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2023.
All research outputs
#434,472
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from Biology Letters
#476
of 3,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,586
of 363,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Letters
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.