Areas and Consequences of the Mismatch Between Ancestral and Modern Conditions on Mate-Retention Capacity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I like what you are doing here. There is a mismatch between the environment in which the human evolved and the contemporary, postindustrial environment. There is research suggesting that a good bit of the psychopathologies we see today may indeed be due to this mismatch. Your emphasis on mate-retention and relationship satisfaction is interesting, but I believe you could make the argument stronger if you drew attention to how these mismatches affect the quality of children resulting from these relationships. Are you suggesting that both quantity and quality of children are affected by the emergence of postindustrial society? Does this account for the so-called "demographic shift"? While one might want to draw attention to singlehood and emotional well-being, the real metric is the quality of children (and not necessarily quantity). So, I believe this should factor into a revised manuscript. Can you point to research that clearly indicates that the quality of children is lower in the postindustrial world? I believe this would enhance the strength of your argument.

Author Response

I like what you are doing here. There is a mismatch between the environment in which the human evolved and the contemporary, postindustrial environment. There is research suggesting that a good bit of the psychopathologies we see today may indeed be due to this mismatch. Your emphasis on mate-retention and relationship satisfaction is interesting, but I believe you could make the argument stronger if you drew attention to how these mismatches affect the quality of children resulting from these relationships. Are you suggesting that both quantity and quality of children are affected by the emergence of postindustrial society? Does this account for the so-called "demographic shift"? While one might want to draw attention to singlehood and emotional well-being, the real metric is the quality of children (and not necessarily quantity). So, I believe this should factor into a revised manuscript. Can you point to research that clearly indicates that the quality of children is lower in the postindustrial world? I believe this would enhance the strength of your argument.

 

-I would like to thank you very much for reviewing my paper and for your kind words about my work. You offer a very valuable insight! It is most likely the case that poor mate-retention capacity is not only going to result in fewer children, but it is also likely to affect children’s wellbeing. I now discuss this insight in the text (section 4, fourth paragraph). Thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a clear, timely, and engaging argument with a well-curated evolutionary literature base and an accessible narrative arc from ultimate to proximate causes and consequences. I have only a few focused requests that I think will substantially strengthen the contribution while preserving its elegant simplicity. First, because the construct  "capacity to retain an intimate partner" is central and the paper claims that scale development is a key next step, it would help to move beyond a descriptive definition and propose observable indicators the eventual instrument could include. Concretely, please sketch behavioral indicators (e.g., frequency of relationship dissolutions across a fixed window, initiator of dissolutions, documented episodes of "critical" conflict), evaluative indicators (e.g.,partner-report scales of effort, jealousy, and aggression), and event indicators (e.g., relationship duration, shared projects such as cohabitation, joint finances , or children). Even a brief table-in-text description would tie the theoretical construct to measurable phenomena and make Section 4.1's call for instrument development more actionable. 

Second, the ultimate-proximate framework would benefit from explicitly addressing social media and social comparison as contemporary mechanisms that alter perceived choice sets and standards. The paper claims that modern contexts reduce dependence on partners and increase freedom of choice; extending this logic to online environments would clarify how abundant, algorithmically highlighted alternatives, attractiveness "skews", and idealized self-presentation can inflate expectations and make everyday relationships feel comparatively dull, thereby frustrating mate retention.  A short subsection synthesizing how social media intensifies opportunity for mate switching and raises comparison thresholds would dovetail naturally with the jealousy and effort pathways already discussed .

Third, please add a compact "Boundary conditions.." subsection clarifying when mismatch-driven reductions in retention capacity should be maximal versus minimal across heterogeneous postindustrial settings. For example, specify predictions for contexts with weak kinship/allocare and thin social support versus contexts with robust extended-family or state supports;  high housing costs and constrained household formation versus affordable housing; skewed local sex ratios and thick online dating markets versus balanced, offline markets; strict divorce regimes versus liberal ones. Stating these boundary conditions will make the theory more falsifiable and easier to test cross-culturally, consistent with the paper's comparative ambitions.

Fourth, it would strengthen the manuscript to situate the evolutionary account alongside prominent alternative explanations and to articulate differential predictions. A brief comparative paragraph could cover the Investment Model (Rusbult), where low investments and high quality alternatives predict dissolution (explaining "insufficient effort" without evolutionary premises); attachment theory, with expected patterns in stability by attachment style;  sex-ratio and "economics of sex" perspectives linking partner/child costs and market imbalances to commitment; and technological moderators,including online search for alternatives, pornography, and parasocial ties that may amplify or redirect mating effort. Where the paper already discusses jealousy and coercion, please bind these to testable moderators - sex differences, institutional constraints and sanctions, and resource regimes- and highlight where the mismatch model makes unique predictions (e.g., sharper sex asymmetries in jealousy/coalitional aggression in settings with weak rights protection; larger parenting-load effects where allo-support is lowest). 

Finally, please distinguish "mating effort" directed within the current relationship from "mate search effort" directed toward acquiring alternatives. The paper sometimes treats "insufficient mating effort " and opportunity for switching in the same breath ; analytically separating within-relationship maintenance from outside-relationship search will clarify proposed mechanisms and improve the construct map (and Figure 1 could be lightly amended to show these two routes explicitly) 

Author Response

This is a clear, timely, and engaging argument with a well-curated evolutionary literature base and an accessible narrative arc from ultimate to proximate causes and consequences. I have only a few focused requests that I think will substantially strengthen the contribution while preserving its elegant simplicity.

 

 

-I would like to thank you very much for reviewing my paper and for your kind words about my work. Your insights are very valuable, and I have included them in the current revision.

 

 

First, because the construct  "capacity to retain an intimate partner" is central and the paper claims that scale development is a key next step, it would help to move beyond a descriptive definition and propose observable indicators the eventual instrument could include. Concretely, please sketch behavioral indicators (e.g., frequency of relationship dissolutions across a fixed window, initiator of dissolutions, documented episodes of "critical" conflict), evaluative indicators (e.g.,partner-report scales of effort, jealousy, and aggression), and event indicators (e.g., relationship duration, shared projects such as cohabitation, joint finances , or children). Even a brief table-in-text description would tie the theoretical construct to measurable phenomena and make Section 4.1's call for instrument development more actionable.

 

 

-This is a good point. Following your suggestion, in the present revision I discuss the development of such instrument in more detail (4.1, first paragraph).

 

 

Second, the ultimate-proximate framework would benefit from explicitly addressing social media and social comparison as contemporary mechanisms that alter perceived choice sets and standards. The paper claims that modern contexts reduce dependence on partners and increase freedom of choice; extending this logic to online environments would clarify how abundant, algorithmically highlighted alternatives, attractiveness "skews", and idealized self-presentation can inflate expectations and make everyday relationships feel comparatively dull, thereby frustrating mate retention.  A short subsection synthesizing how social media intensifies opportunity for mate switching and raises comparison thresholds would dovetail naturally with the jealousy and effort pathways already discussed .

 

 

-Yes, that’s a good point. I have added a section to discuss online mate choice (2.3.5).

 

 

Third, please add a compact "Boundary conditions.." subsection clarifying when mismatch-driven reductions in retention capacity should be maximal versus minimal across heterogeneous postindustrial settings. For example, specify predictions for contexts with weak kinship/allocare and thin social support versus contexts with robust extended-family or state supports;  high housing costs and constrained household formation versus affordable housing; skewed local sex ratios and thick online dating markets versus balanced, offline markets; strict divorce regimes versus liberal ones. Stating these boundary conditions will make the theory more falsifiable and easier to test cross-culturally, consistent with the paper's comparative ambitions.

 

 

-That is an excellent suggestion! I have added the relevant section in the text (3.2).

 

 

Fourth, it would strengthen the manuscript to situate the evolutionary account alongside prominent alternative explanations and to articulate differential predictions. A brief comparative paragraph could cover the Investment Model (Rusbult), where low investments and high quality alternatives predict dissolution (explaining "insufficient effort" without evolutionary premises); attachment theory, with expected patterns in stability by attachment style;  sex-ratio and "economics of sex" perspectives linking partner/child costs and market imbalances to commitment; and technological moderators,including online search for alternatives, pornography, and parasocial ties that may amplify or redirect mating effort. Where the paper already discusses jealousy and coercion, please bind these to testable moderators - sex differences, institutional constraints and sanctions, and resource regimes- and highlight where the mismatch model makes unique predictions (e.g., sharper sex asymmetries in jealousy/coalitional aggression in settings with weak rights protection; larger parenting-load effects where allo-support is lowest).

 

 

-You make a good point, and I agree that a synthesis of the evolutionary perspective with other theoretical perspectives can provide a more powerful framework for studying the phenomenon in question. Following your suggestion, this synthesis is discussed in the text (4.1, last paragraph).

 

 

Finally, please distinguish "mating effort" directed within the current relationship from "mate search effort" directed toward acquiring alternatives. The paper sometimes treats "insufficient mating effort " and opportunity for switching in the same breath ; analytically separating within-relationship maintenance from outside-relationship search will clarify proposed mechanisms and improve the construct map (and Figure 1 could be lightly amended to show these two routes explicitly)

 

 

-Yes, good point. Following your suggestion, in the current revision I make it explicit that I refer to the effort required for keeping a current partner (3.1.4, first paragraph).

 

Thank you very much once again for your valuable insights!