Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T17:39:12.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecological affordances across life stages and evolutionary mismatch: hormonal contraceptives as an illustrative example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2026

Juliana E. French Open the ORCID record for Juliana E. French [Opens in a new window] ,
Hanna G. Campbell Open the ORCID record for Hanna G. Campbell [Opens in a new window]  and
Andrea L. Meltzer Open the ORCID record for Andrea L. Meltzer [Opens in a new window]
Juliana E. French*
Affiliation:
University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA julianafrench@usf.edu
Hanna G. Campbell
Affiliation:
Florida State University, Department of Psychology, Tallahassee, FL, USA hgc18@fsu.edu meltzer@psy.fsu.edu
Andrea L. Meltzer
Affiliation:
Florida State University, Department of Psychology, Tallahassee, FL, USA hgc18@fsu.edu meltzer@psy.fsu.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We integrated Ko and Neuberg’s proposed framework with the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis to suggest that ancestrally novel dimensions of the environment not only pose their own affordances but may also interact with other environmental dimensions to dynamically alter the affordances they pose. Using hormonal contraceptives as an illustrative example, we delineated several testable predictions that follow from these ideas.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e66
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, J. M., Maner, J. K., & Carpenter, S. M. (2016). Going all in: Unfavorable sex ratios attenuate choice diversification. Psychological Science, 27(6), 799–809.10.1177/0956797616636631CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R. S., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 45–64.10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bocanegra, H. T., Chang, R., Howell, M., & Darney, P. (2014). Interpregnancy intervals: impact of postpartum contraceptive effectiveness and coverage. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 210(4), 311–e1.Google Scholar
French, J. E., & Meltzer, A. L. (2020). The implications of changing hormonal contraceptive use after relationship formation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(4), 274–283.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, J. E., Meltzer, A. L., & Maner, J. K. (2017). Men’s perceived partner commitment and mate guarding: The moderating role of partner’s hormonal contraceptive use. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 173–186.10.1037/ebs0000087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 55–77.10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2002). The power of the pill: Oral contraceptives and women’s career and marriage decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 110(4), 730–770.10.1086/340778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, P. J. (1980). Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Animal Behaviour, 28(4), 1140–1162.10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80103-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, D. W., & Mace, R. (2009). Trade-offs in modern parenting: A longitudinal study of sibling competition for parental care. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(3), 170–183.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, N. P., Van Vugt, M., & Colarelli, S. M. (2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 38–44.10.1177/0963721417731378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, A., Hicks, L. L., French, J. E., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2017). Quantifying the sexual afterglow: The lingering benefits of sex and their implications for pair-bonded relationships. Psychological Science, 29, 587–598.10.1177/0956797617691361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mørch, L. S., Skovlund, C. W., Hannaford, P. C., Iversen, L., Fielding, S., & Lidegaard, Ø. (2017). Contemporary hormonal contraception and the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 2228–2239.10.1056/NEJMoa1700732CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, J. H., & Maner, J. K. (2016). Biased sex ratios influence fundamental aspects of human mating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 72–80.10.1177/0146167215612744CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettay, J. E., Lummaa, V., Lynch, R., & Loehr, J. (2021). Female-biased sex ratios in urban centers create a “fertility trap” in post-war Finland. Behavioral Ecology, 32(4), 590–598.10.1093/beheco/arab007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, R., Yacobson, I., & Grimes, D. (1999). The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181(5), 1263–1269.10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70120-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187.10.1037/a0031859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. M. (1992). Marriage opportunities and family formation: Further implications of imbalanced sex ratios. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 440–451.10.2307/353075CrossRefGoogle Scholar