Circadian Preference and Sexual Selection: A Novel Evolutionary Approach

Abstract

Human sleep patterns differ across age groups and between males and females, and their association with age and gender suggest that they might have been the target of sexual selection during human evolutionary history. In this study, I will test the hypothesis that a phase-delayed circadian phase is a sexually selected trait in humans. A short version of the Horne and Ostberg questionnaire and a questionnaire on sexual behaviour were administered to 134 males. A significant negative relationship was found between the MEQ score and the number of sexual partners among males, with evening types reporting more sexual partners than morning types. Findings support the hypothesis that evening preference in males is a sexually selected trait

Uses and Gratifications of Problematic Social Media Use Among University Students: a Simultaneous Examination of the Big Five of Personality Traits, Social Media Platforms, and Social Media Use Motives

“…This result concurs with prior studies reporting higher use of Facebook for meeting new people and socializing among men (Horzum 2016). This result may be explained by the supporting findings of previous studies which suggest that using Facebook for the social gratifications is related to higher eveningness (i.e., having a preference for getting up later and going to bed later) (Horzum and Demirhan 2017), and that higher eveningness is associated higher flirtatious behaviors and having more sexual partners on the part of men (Piffer 2010;Piffer et al 2011). Moreover, eveningness has been associated with the Dark Triad of personality (Jonason et al 2013;Rahafar et al 2017) which has also been associated with a faster lifestyle and short-term mating on the part of men (Jonason et al 2009).…”

Sociosexuality, Morningness–Eveningness, and Sleep Duration

“…Some studies on M/E and sexual behavior reported the possibility that gender differences in chronotype or circadian preference may be a result of a sexual-selection process (Gunawardane, Piffer, & Custance, 2011;Piffer, 2010;Putilov, 2014;Randler et al, 2012a). Differences between males and females have been interpreted as possible indicators for sexual selection since Darwin (1874).…”

“…This suggests that evening types follow a different and more sociosexually unrestricted mating strategy. Similarly, Maestripieri (2014) reported that evening type women were rather similar in their mating characteristics compared with evening men, suggesting that differences between the sexes in chronotype may not a be result from sexual selection, but rather that evening chronotype is related to sociosexuality independent of gender.However, it is yet unclear if eveningness is related to mating strategy in both sexes because most studies were based on men (Gunawardane et al, 2011;Piffer, 2010;Randler et al, 2012a). Second, the number of partners of extra-pair matings is only one aspect of sociosexuality, and others are Attitude and Desire (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008 in relation to M/E in only one study , which found that evening females were less sociosexually restricted than morning ones, whereas no relationship between sociosexuality and M/E was found in males.…”

The slow and fast life histories of early birds and night owls: their future- or present-orientation accounts for their sexually monogamous or promiscuous tendencies

“…Evening-types also score higher than morning-types in impulsivity, novelty-seeking, and risk-taking (Caci, Robert, & Boyer, 2004;Caci et al, 2005;Killgore, 2007;Maestripieri, 2014;Muro, Gomá-i-Freixanet, & Adan, 2012;Tonetti et al, 2010). Finally, evening-types are less sociosexually restricted (in women: Jankowski, Diaz-Morales, Vollmer, & Randler, 2014) and report a higher number of life-time sexual partners than morning-types (in men: Piffer, 2010;Piffer, Gunawardane, & Custance, 2011;Randler et al, 2012). Although the functional significance of chronotype-related variation in physiological, psychological, and behavioral traits has not been systematically addressed, life history theory can potentially provide a powerful framework for understanding this variation from a functional and evolutionary perspective.…”