4.4 Article

Sex differences in cognition and their relationship to male mate choice

期刊

CURRENT ZOOLOGY
卷 65, 期 3, 页码 285-293

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cz/zoz014

关键词

cognition; detour task; mutual mate choice; sexual selection; threespine stickleback

类别

资金

  1. University of Denver

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Male cognition has gained recognition as an important potential player in sexual selection. A number of studies have found positive correlations between male sexual signals and cognitive performance and/or female preferences for males with better cognitive performance, although other studies have not found these relationships. Sex roles can differ dramatically, and sex differences in selection on cognition likely follow from the different tasks associated with these sex roles. Here, using threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, a species with clearly divergent sex roles and mutual mate choice, we focus on the cognitive trait inhibitory control because males must differentially respond to reproductive females versus other sticklebacks while defending territories and refrain from eating eggs and fry while performing paternal care. We presented fish with a detour task four times over a period of 7 days, allowing us to assess initial inhibitory control and improvement over time. We ask 1) whether there are sex differences in inhibitory control and 2) whether male mate choice is associated with female inhibitory control. Although males outperformed females on three different measures of detour task performance across four trials, these differences were largely explained by males being less neophobic than females. Females took more trials to successfully solve the detour task, even after accounting for sex differences in neophobia. Female cognitive abilities, however, were unrelated to the vigor with which males courted them. The equivocal results regarding sex differences in cognitive ability suggest further study given the very different selection pressures each sex experiences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据