Greater precision, not parsimony, is the key to testing the peri-ovulation spandrel hypothesis: a response to comments on Havlicek et al. 2015
Abstract
We welcome the wide range of comments provoked by the introduction of our alternative theoretical perspective on the peri-ovulation paradigm. A key assumption of our "peri-ovulation spandrel" hypothesis is that the formation of long-term relationships is critical to understanding human mate preferences.
We are skeptical about the ecological validity of distinguishing between short-term and long-term mating preferences as little is known about how these categories are interpreted and distinguished by participants. Commentators also stated that effect sizes in cyclic preference shifts might be underestimated by imprecise assessment of ovulation.
However, it is equally plausible that more precise assessment might lead to lower effect sizes. Finally, it was argued that our hypothesis is not phylogenetically parsimonious.
In our view, the crucial evolutionary change that took place at the root of anthropoid primates is the decoupling of sexual activity from strict dependence on sex hormones. Thus, the pattern we see in humans is not an evolutionary novelty but a variation on a common theme seen across anthropoid primate taxa, despite the relative rarity among anthropoid primates of long-term bonded relationships.