IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i2p165-182..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unlike a virgin: a meta-analytical review of female mating status in studies of female mate choice

Author

Listed:
  • Jon Richardson
  • Marlene Zuk

Abstract

Studies of female mate choice commonly use virgin females as test subjects, either to control for the effects of mating or because virgin females are presumed to be more responsive to mating cues. Theory predicts that virgin females will be less choosy because they risk dying without mating. Moreover, in many species, females spend more of their lives mated than as virgins. Thus, the exclusive use of virgin females in studies of female mate choice may underestimate the strength or direction of female choice and fail to reflect natural mating decisions. We conducted a systematic meta-analysis of female mate choice studies focusing on three scenarios in which female choice might differ in virgin and mated females: reproductive isolation, inbreeding avoidance, and sexually transmitted disease. Using only virgin females was common (53% of 303 studies). In addition, 38% of studies lacked information on female mating history. Contrary to predictions, we found no evidence that virgin females were less choosy than mated females. Nevertheless, excluding mated females from studies of female mate choice leaves an important gap in our understanding of the role of female preferences in evolution. We therefore encourage future studies of female mate choice to consider the natural context of mate choice and include mated females as test subjects when relevant.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon Richardson & Marlene Zuk, 2023. "Unlike a virgin: a meta-analytical review of female mating status in studies of female mate choice," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(2), pages 165-182.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:2:p:165-182.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arac091
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:2:p:165-182.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.