Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Evolutionary Psychology logoLink to Evolutionary Psychology
. 2025 Jul 28;23(3):14747049251355861. doi: 10.1177/14747049251355861

Life History, Attachment and Romantic Relationship Outcomes in an Eastern European Adult Sample

Monika Kwiek 1, Daniel J Kruger 2,✉, Przemyslaw Piotrowski 1
PMCID: PMC12304586  PMID: 40717604

Abstract

Developmental environments shape attachment styles and life history (LH) patterns, both of which predict romantic relationship outcomes. However, the ways in which attachment styles interact with LH dimensions—specifically, mating effort and parenting effort—and how these relationships predict romantic relationship outcomes remain unclear. The current study investigated how these factors predict relationship satisfaction and conflict in a sample of Polish adults (N = 332, Mage = 39 years, SD = 9.10). We hypothesized that mating and parenting efforts would mediate the relationship between developmental environments and relationship outcomes independently from attachment style. Results supported this hypothesis for mating effort but not for parenting effort. Additionally, the current study found little support for a connection between mating/parenting effort and attachment styles and indicated that LH can be influenced by a broader range of early developmental experiences than attachment. The results imply that although both mating effort/parenting effort and attachment styles are affected by early environments and can predict the same relationship outcomes, the developmental processes through which they operate may differ. The implications of the obtained results are discussed.

Keywords: mating effort, parenting effort, relationship satisfaction, relationship conflict, attachment

Introduction

A substantial body of literature links upbringing in a hostile family environment to difficulties in romantic relationships later in life (e.g., Afifi et al., 2017; Heyman & Slep, 2002; Maleck & Papp, 2015). An adverse family dynamic can increase the likelihood of struggles with conflict resolution in adult relationships (Pizzirani et al., 2021; Simpson et al., 2011), and contribute to lower satisfaction in romantic partnerships (Friesen et al., 2010; Parade et al., 2012; Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2019), and elevate the risk of breakup or divorce (Colman & Widom, 2004).

The link between early childhood experiences and future romantic relationships is often explained through attachment styles, which highlight how early interactions with primary caregivers shape adult relationships with significant others (e.g., Campbell & Stanton, 2019). However, these associations can also be understood through the lens of life history theory (LHT), which extends beyond the caregiving environment to consider the broader context of early developmental experiences and their impact on adult relationships (Szepsenwol et al., 2019).

Despite the clear value of both LHT and attachment theory in understanding the etiology of romantic relationship satisfaction and conflict, research in this area remains heavily dominated by the attachment perspective (e.g., Godbout et al., 2017; River et al., 2022; Stover et al., 2018). Studies exploring the role of LHT in romantic relationships are relatively scarce, and those that exist often assess life history (LH) using the Mini-K (Loureto et al., 2022; Olderbak & Figueredo, 2009, 2010), the validity of which has been debated in LHT research (e.g., Copping et al., 2014, 2017; Gruijters & Fleuren, 2018; Kwiek & Piotrowski, 2020). More importantly, the Mini-K includes items concerning attachment to the romantic partner. Since the Mini-K score reflects a composite of various traits and behaviors loading onto a higher-order construct, it remains unclear to what extent its associations with romantic relationship outcomes are driven by the attachment-related items.

In this article, we examine whether the primary LH dimensions—mating effort and parenting effort—independently mediate the relationship between the developmental environment and two romantic relationship outcomes (satisfaction and conflict), when controlling for attachment.

Importantly, the present study focuses on the behavioral aspects of parental investment and mating, which is characteristic of the LH approach in evolutionary developmental psychology. In contrast, LHT as it originated in evolutionary biology is concerned primarily with adaptive patterns of energy allocation among growth, bodily maintenance, and reproduction—without close attention to behavioral variation, even in the domains of mating and parenting (Sear, 2020). Indeed, the approaches to LHT in evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology are often regarded as distinct research programs, each with its own aims and subject matter: while evolutionary biologists seek ultimate explanations through formal modeling, evolutionary psychologists tend to focus on proximate psychological processes (Nettle & Frankenhuis, 2019, 2020). To avoid confusion that may arise from directly applying classic LHT terms such as “LH traits” or “LH strategies” from biology to psychological research (Sear, 2020), we frame LHT in this article through the lens of psychological dimensions of mating and parenting effort—constructs that play a central role in theoretical and empirical work linking LH and attachment (e.g., Belsky et al., 1991; Del Giudice, 2009; Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019).

Attachment

The influence of early-life family background on later intimate relationships is commonly explained by referring to attachment theory, according to which children—based on the level of warmth and responsiveness experienced in early interactions with primary caregivers—develop internal working models of themselves and others that lead to distinct attachment styles (Collins & Read, 1990). Children with consistently available, sensitive, and responsive caregivers tend to develop a secure attachment style, using the caregiver as a “secure base” for exploration and seeking comfort when distressed. On the other hand, children with rejecting or uninvolved caregivers are at risk of developing insecure-avoidant attachment. Viewing the caregiver as unavailable, they avoid physical contact and do not seek comfort when distressed, employing a “minimizing” strategy to avoid further rejection. Meanwhile, children with caregivers who are inconsistently available—alternating between acceptance and rejection—often develop insecure anxious attachment. These children become easily distressed and intensely seek comfort but are difficult to soothe and may respond with anger to maintain closeness. They use a “maximizing” strategy by exaggerating their needs to control the caregiver's behavior (see Del Giudice, 2009).

The attachment styles developed by children in a response to certain parental behavior are then maintained in other relationships that people form in adulthood (Stackert & Bursik, 2003). Numerous studies have indicated the mediating role of attachment in the association between growing up in a hostile family environment and poor functioning in adult romantic relationships (Barbaro & Shackelford, 2019; Godbout et al., 2017; McCarthy & Taylor, 1999; River et al., 2022; Stover et al., 2018). In general, insecurely attached individuals tend to be less satisfied in their romantic relationships (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Gleeson & Fitzgerald, 2014; Schade et al., 2013; Stackert & Bursik, 2003), more likely to face frequent and severe relationship conflicts (Campbell et al., 2005), and have more difficulties with resolving those conflicts in a constructive manner. This is due to their reliance on insecure strategies, such as demanding and controlling behaviors or distancing and withdrawal. In contrast, securely attached individuals are more likely to respond to couple conflicts with proximity-seeking behaviors, which stem from a more positive perception of their partners as attentive and available (see Feeney & Fitzgerald, 2019).

LH Variation

Evolutionary biologists have long recognized the influence of environmental conditions on reproductive strategies (Fisher, 1930). Gadgil and Bossert (1970) proposed one of the first formal models to account for species-level variation in LH trade-offs between reproduction and longevity. In their model, organisms are viewed as operating under a limited energy budget that must be allocated among three competing functions: growth, maintenance, and reproduction. The energy devoted to reproduction reduces the resources available for growth and bodily maintenance. Conversely, investing in growth and maintenance can enhance future reproductive success by increasing survival chances and allowing greater energy accumulation for reproduction at later stages. Gadgil and Bossert predicted that when mortality increases across all age groups beyond a certain life stage, natural selection would favor earlier reproduction. In such contexts, reproductive effort shifts toward younger ages, and lifespan tends to decrease reflecting the inherent trade-off between reproduction and survival. In other words, in environments where the likelihood of surviving into older age is reduced, faster LH strategies are favored. These strategies involve earlier and greater investment in reproduction at the cost of growth and maintenance (Gadgil & Bossert, 1970).

These principles form the foundation of LHT, which has been widely applied in the social sciences to explain individual differences in human reproductive strategies as adaptations to early life adversity. Evolutionary developmental psychology emphasizes how early environmental experiences shape the development of reproductive strategies, with a strong focus on behavioral traits—especially those related to sexual activity and parenting (Sear, 2020). Within the LHT-informed framework of evolutionary developmental psychology, environmental harshness and unpredictability are typically associated with elevated risks of extrinsic morbidity and mortality, that can negatively affect offspring fitness regardless the amount of parental investment. Under such conditions, it seems beneficial to invest more in reproduction (maximizing the number of offspring by high mating effort) at the expense of investing in parental care (e.g., Ellis et al., 2009). In general, harsher and more unpredictable environments promote more investment in mating effort and less investment in parenting offspring, as well as shorter time horizons to take advantage of transient opportunities (Chisholm, 1993). Meanwhile, benign and predictable developmental environments promote more investment in parenting offspring and less investment in mating efforts to acquire new reproductive partners (Chisholm, 1993; Kaplan & Gangestad, 2005).

Although mating and parenting efforts seem to be naturally connected to certain aspects of romantic relationships, there are not many studies that investigate the associations between mating/parenting effort and romantic relationship outcomes without referring to attachment styles, since attachment-related content is often embedded in commonly used LH measures (see Loureto et al., 2022; Olderbak & Figueredo, 2009, 2010).

Interrelationships Between Attachment and LH

Bowlby (1969) originally conceptualized the attachment system as an evolved survival strategy for protecting infants from predators, though he noted the relationship between attachment insecurity and impulsive sexuality. Belsky et al. (1991) reframed the attachment process as an evolved psychological system designed to evaluate developmental environments and shape reproductive strategies that would be more likely to succeed under given conditions. As Del Giudice (2009) noted, both insecure attachment and fast LH develop as an adaptive response to the environmental experiences. The high mating effort/low parenting effort profile of characteristics in fast LH, consistent with an avoidant attachment style, may be especially adaptive for men. These men could significantly lower their parenting investments, engaging in multiple, uncommitted relationships instead. Although the much more restricted reproductive biology of females would not allow for such dramatic shifts of reproductive investments, under adverse conditions women also tend to develop faster LH by starting reproduction at a younger age and having more sexual partners (Del Giudice, 2009). On the proximate level, the latter might be a consequence of experiencing low or no paternal investments in childhood, making women less selective and less demanding in relationships, due to internalized assumptions that all men are unreliable (Belsky et al., 1991). Considering the above, Del Giudice (2009) argues, that for women from adverse ecologies, it might be more adaptive to develop an anxious attachment style that increases the chances of staying in strong relationships with close relatives, who can help with taking care of children, when fathers are low-investing or absent.

Therefore, for both men and women, fast LH and insecure attachment seem to operate as adaptive mechanisms that shape reproductive strategies most suitable for environmental conditions evaluated early in life. In fact, there are some theoretical models linking attachment and LHT (Belsky, 1997; Belsky et al., 1991; Chisholm, 1993, 1996; Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019). According to the most recent one (Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019), the relationship between childhood adversity and LH can be mediated by attachment orientation, reflecting an individual's beliefs and expectations about how safely they may rely on other people and trust them. This results in individuals with secure attachment styles engaging in long-term committed relationships and higher quality parenting, whereas among insecurely attached individuals it can lead to poorer parenting and failures in maintaining long-term relationships (Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019).

In fact, there is a considerable empirical support for the link between insecure attachment and fast LH. Promiscuity and high investment in mating at the expense of parenting are strongly attributed to avoidant individuals (Belsky, 1997; Del Giudice, 2009), who are prone to engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners with minimal emotional involvement or long-term intent (Birnbaum, 2016). Anxiously attached individuals as well are more motivated to quickly engage in sexual partnerships and more likely to get involved in short-term relationships (Barbaro & Shackelford, 2019) due to their tendency to sexualize their need for affection (Birnbaum et al., 2013). They are also prone to having risky, unprotected sex (French et al., 2020) or consenting to unwanted sexual intercourse out of fear of being abandoned (Impett & Peplau, 2002).

On the other hand, the connection between insecure attachment and higher mating effort is not always supported. Some studies indicate more frequent use of contraception by anxiously attached people (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002), or lower frequency of sexual intercourse (Brassard et al., 2007), and delayed onset of intercourse among people with avoidant attachment (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). As Birnbaum noticed (2016), sexual mating and attachment differ in terms of the motivational processes that underly them, with mating effort being driven by reproductive motivation, and attachment by the motivation for care and safety. Although sex undoubtedly plays an important role in romantic attachment relationships, it appears that mating behavior and attachment do not always have to be connected (Birnbaum, 2016).

The above might also suggest the existence of independent pathways through which LH and attachment styles can affect romantic relationship outcomes. However, as stated before, most studies that link LH variation with romantic relationship outcomes, contain some reference to adult romantic partner attachment (Loureto et al., 2022; Olderbak & Figueredo, 2009, 2010). More research is needed to verify whether the connection between LH and romantic relationship outcomes would remain when controlling for attachment.

Environmental Development

Most research on how the developmental environment affects romantic relationship outcomes focuses on attachment formation, using methods such as observation of parenting behaviors (e.g., Cui et al., 2011; Maleck & Papp, 2015; Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2010). Certainly, such behaviors can be indicative of parental stress related to external adverse socioecology (e.g., unstable sociopolitical situation, poverty, or unemployment), and as such, they can be treated as representations of harshness and unpredictability of a broader environmental context, especially for very young children (Chisholm, 1993).

Although from an LHT perspective, the relationship with one's parents can be an important part of early developmental background, it is not common for LH-oriented researchers to rely on such variables exclusively while assessing early life experiences. Instead, they tend to examine a broader context of the developmental environment that includes threat-based forms of harshness (e.g., harsh parenting and neighborhood violence), deprivation-based forms of harshness (e.g., poverty, unemployment, and caregiver neglect), and different forms of unpredictability (e.g., parental transition and relocation) (Ellis et al., 2022).

There is evidence that broader community adversity experienced during youth (e.g., poverty, unemployment, and a higher prevalence of single-parent families within a school district) can negatively affect various aspects of romantic relationships, such as conflict resolution, communication, trust, and sexual satisfaction (Wickrama & O'Neal, 2016). Other studies suggest that early-life unpredictability (e.g., frequent changes in residency or parental unemployment) is linked to a higher likelihood of both perpetrating and experiencing intimate partner violence (Szepsenwol et al., 2019), poorer relationship quality, and greater emotional distress when managing relationship conflicts (Szepsenwol et al., 2022).

Given these findings, it can be assumed that while the caregiving environment influences future romantic relationships through both attachment styles and mating/parenting effort, the impact of broader developmental ecology on romantic relationships might be mediated exclusively through the latter. However, more research is needed to explore the interconnections between broader developmental environments, LH, attachment, and romantic relationship outcomes.

The Current Study

The current study provides an integration of theory and measures related to romantic relationship outcomes in an LH framework. The study combined different types of assessments of developmental environments, including indicators of harshness and unpredictability from the LH literature, indicators of neighborhood conditions popular in the general health literature, and parental education as proxies of socio-economic status.

Attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety measures were included as mediators, as were indicators of mating effort and parenting effort.

The main goal of the current study was to examine whether mating and parenting effort can mediate the relationship between developmental environment and romantic relationship satisfaction and conflict as well as to verify, if mating effort and parenting effort will account for unique variance in romantic relationship satisfaction and conflict, when controlling for attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. Additionally, an attempt was made to verify whether mating and parenting are related to attachment styles as well as to examine how LH dimensions and attachment styles can be affected by different aspects of the broad developmental environment.

Studies of psychological LH variation are most often based on university students in North America (Figueredo et al., 2014). The current study recruited middle-aged Polish adults. No single sample provides a perfect test of LH hypotheses. However, accumulating findings from diverse populations—including the present study on an Eastern European sample—can advance the understanding of human LH variation.

Method

Participants

Psychology students at the Jagiellonian University recruited adults with living children (though not necessarily caretakers) for participation in this study. All participants provided written consent. Researchers then contacted participants to verify their consent and provide them with the online survey link. There was no compensation for participation in the study. The sample consisted of 332 participants (Mage = 39 years, SD = 9.10), the majority of whom were women (77.1%). Most participants reported having completed higher education, with 12.1% holding a bachelor's degree, 54.4% a master's degree, and 3% a doctorate. Additionally, 6.6% had an associate's degree, 11.2% had graduated from college or technical school, 7.9% had completed high school, and 4.8% had less than a high school education. All participants were Polish . Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board for Health and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Michigan and the Ethics Committee at the Jagiellonian University.

Measures and Procedure

Participants completed an online Qualtrics survey with measures previously validated with English-speaking participants translated into Polish.

LH Dimensions

LH dimensions were assessed with Mating Effort and Parenting Effort scales with eight items for each dimension. Items from these scales were combined in a randomized order and presented as a set (Kruger, 2017). Instructions read, Please rate how well the following statements describe you and what you would do. Participants rated each item on a scale from 0 (Not at all) to 100 (Completely). Mating effort example items included Flirts often, Competitive with peers, and Knowingly hits on someone else's partner. Parental investment example items included Good at taking care of children, Devotes most resources to supporting family, and Caring and emotionally supportive. Participants rated each description on items using a sliding scale ranging from 0% to 100% and initially set at 50%. Selected values were displayed to participants, and each scale could be modified until participants advanced to the next page. Cronbach's alpha was .768 for the Parenting Effort scale and .687 for the Mating Effort scale.

Attachment

Attachment was assessed using the short form of the Experiences in Close Relationships scale (Wei et al., 2007). This measure consists of six items assessing attachment avoidance and six items assessing attachment anxiety, presented in randomized order. Example items included I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner (anxiety) and I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back (avoidance). Participants rated each item on a fully labeled 7-point scale ranging from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly. Cronbach's alpha was .797 for attachment avoidance and .641 for attachment anxiety.

Romantic Relationship Outcomes

Romantic relationship satisfaction was assessed using the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988). This measure consists of seven items, such as My relationship has met my original expectations. Participants rated all items on a 7-point scale ranging from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly. Cronbach's alpha was .911.

Romantic relationship conflict was assessed using the Interactional Reactivity subscale of the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (Zacchilli et al., 2009). This subscale consists of six items, such as My partner and I often argue because I do not trust him/her. Participants rated all items on a 7-point scale ranging from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly. Cronbach's alpha was .759.

Developmental Environment—Harshness and Unpredictability

The Developmental Environment Scale (Kruger & Jonsson, 2019) is an 8-item measure that includes such aspects of early harshness and unpredictability as an absent father, relocation, or growing up in poverty. Example items include We were often short on money. Participants rated To what extent do the following describe your (or your family's) experiences during your childhood? on a scale from 0 (Not at all) to 100 (Completely). Cronbach's alpha was .602.

Developmental Environment—Neighborhood Conditions

The Neighborhood Collective Efficacy Scale (adapted from Kruger et al., 2007) consists of 8 items regarding the characteristics of the childhood neighborhood. Example items include People were willing to help their neighbors. The responses are rated on 7-point Likert scales ranging from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly. The higher the score, the better the neighborhood where the participant grew up. Cronbach's alpha was .816.

The Neighborhood Safety/Danger Scale (adapted from Kruger et al., 2007) is a 4-item measure that relates to the self-perceived crime rate as well as the likelihood of falling victim to physical attack, sexual assault, or theft. The participants were asked to give their retrospective assessment of the level of their childhood neighborhood danger using a 5-point scale ranging from Not dangerous at all to Very dangerous. Example items include Please think about the neighborhood where you grew up and rate how dangerous you consider it in terms of the likelihood of your property being stolen or destroyed. Cronbach's alpha was .808.

Analyses

Data were entered into a path model following the structure of the theoretical approach. Conditions in developmental environments were exogenous predictors of all other variables, attachment anxiety and attachment anxiety were the first set of mediators of relationships between developmental environments and other variables, mating effort and parenting effort were the second set of mediators of relationships between preceding variables, and relationship outcomes. Indicators of conditions in developmental environments were allowed to covary. Nonsignificant paths were trimmed in order of descending p-values. In posthoc analyses, we created a saturated model with all paths freed for comparison purposes.

Results

In the first step of data analysis, descriptive statistics were calculated for study variables expressed on a quantitative scale (Table 1). Because parental education was measured using categorical levels rather than a continuous scale, it is reported separately in Table 2.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Research Indicators (N = 322).

M SD
1. Neighborhood Danger 1.46 0.51
2. Neighborhood Collective Efficacy 10.98 1.67
3. Harshness and Unpredictability 23.95 14.26
6. Avoidance 2.35 1.03
7. Anxiety 3.17 1.04
8. Parenting effort 85.25 11.93
9. Mating effort 32.87 13.87
10. Relationship Conflict 3.03 1.58
11. Relationship Satisfaction 5.53 1.27
Open in a new tab

Note: Variables are numbered consistently across tables and figures to facilitate comparisons.

Table 2.

Highest Obtained Education of Respondents’ Parents (N = 322).

Descriptive Value
Father's education
 Less than high school 46.4%
 High school 4.2%
 Some college or technical school 32.2%
 Associate's degree 2.7%
 Bachelor's degree 2.1%
 Master's degree 11.4%
 Doctorate (PhD, MD, etc.) 0.9%
Mother's education
 Less than high school 36.4%
 High school 16.6%
 Some college or technical school 19.6%
 Associate's degree 6.9%
 Bachelor's degree 5.4%
 Master's degree 14.8%
 Doctorate (PhD, MD, etc.) 0.3%
Open in a new tab

The main analyses revealed that mating effort mediated the relationship between conditions in the developmental environment and romantic relationship satisfaction and conflict in the predicted directions (Figure 1). In turn, parenting effort was predicted by conditions in the developmental environment but did not predict romantic relationship satisfaction or conflict. Mating effort, but not parenting effort, uniquely predicted romantic relationship satisfaction and romantic relationship conflict when controlling for the effects of attachment avoidance and anxiety. Higher attachment avoidance, but not attachment anxiety, uniquely predicted higher parenting effort. The mating effort was neither predicted by nor associated with attachment styles (Table 3 and Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Structural Model of Early Environment Predicting Romantic Relationship Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Mating Effort, Parenting Effort, and Insecure Attachment Styles (N = 322). χ2 = 30.67, p = .432, GFI = 0.984, NFI = 0.967, IFI = 0.999, CFI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.008, AIC = 102.67. Note: GFI = Goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; AIC = Akaike information criterion. Variables are numbered consistently across tables and figures to facilitate comparisons. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Zero-Order Correlations Among Early Environment, Mating Effort, Parenting Effort, Attachment Styles, and Romantic Relationship Outcomes (N = 322).

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Neighborhood danger −.51*** .26*** .22*** .15** −.04 .10 −.21*** .14* .05 −.04
2. Neighborhood collective efficacy – −.32*** −.08 −.03 −.05 −.03 .22*** .02 .02 .02
3. Harshness and unpredictability – −.07 −.12* .17** .15** −.20*** .19*** .14* −.20***
4. Father's education – .62*** .01 −.05 −.25*** .10 0 −.02
5. Mother's education – −.15** −.09 −.18*** .17** −.12* .09
6. Avoidance – .25*** −.18*** .02 .45*** −.72***
7. Anxiety – .01 .05 .41*** −.30***
8. Parenting effort – −.13* −.08 .19***
9. Mating effort – .13* −.14**
10. Relationship conflict – −.60***
11. Relationship satisfaction –
Open in a new tab

Note: Variables are numbered consistently across tables and figures to facilitate comparisons.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Greater harshness and unpredictability of developmental environments were associated with higher mating effort and lower parenting effort in mid-adulthood (Table 3 and Figure 1). Also, neighborhood conditions significantly predicted adult LH characteristics. At the bivariate level, higher neighborhood danger predicted lower parenting effort and higher mating effort. Higher neighborhood collective efficacy predicted higher parenting effort at the bivariate level (Table 3). Higher neighborhood danger uniquely predicted higher mating effort (Figure 1), though the other relationships were not maintained when controlling for other factors. Having a higher-educated father predicted lower parenting effort in mid-adulthood while having a higher educated mother predicted higher mating effort (Figure 1) and was associated with lower parenting effort (Table 3).

Greater harshness and unpredictability of developmental environments predicted higher attachment avoidance and anxiety. Parental education did not predict attachment anxiety and had ambiguous effects on attachment avoidance—father education predicted higher attachment avoidance, whereas mother education predicted lower attachment avoidance (Figure 1). No connections were found between attachment styles and neighborhood conditions (Table 3 and Figure 1). The saturated model differed from the trimmed model in three effects: the association between mother's education and neighborhood danger, the prediction of attachment anxiety by harshness and unpredictability of the developmental environment, and the prediction of parenting effort by neighborhood collective efficacy were no longer significant (Supplemental Table S1).

Discussion

LH, Attachment and Romantic Relationship Outcomes

In the current study, mating effort mediated the relationship between developmental environment and romantic relationship outcomes and predicted romantic relationship outcomes independently from attachment. Parenting effort, on the other hand, did not function as a mediator, as it was predicted by developmental conditions but did not significantly predict romantic relationship satisfaction or conflict. Such results can be interpreted as compatible with the fact that mating effort determines behaviors and attitudes fundamental to relationship outcomes, like preferences for certain levels of commitment in a relationship, or disposition of infidelity (Albert et al., 2021), whereas parenting effort seems to be not as intrinsically embedded in the romantic relationship context and may be more connected to the relationship with one's children, than with one's romantic partner. In general, the obtained results seem to indicate that although romantic relationship outcomes may be explained through the LHT approach without referring to attachment, the quality of romantic relationships might be affected only by some relevant LH dimensions (i.e., mating effort).

Regarding the relationships between attachment and LH outcomes, mating effort was neither predicted by nor associated with attachment styles, whereas parenting effort was uniquely predicted by higher attachment avoidance and was not predicted by anxious attachment style.

With regard to mating effort, the above results seem to suggest that despite theoretical models and empirical studies linking it with attachment, these associations might not be as straightforward. More research is needed considering the possibility that although both high mating effort and insecure attachment style can affect relationship outcomes in a similar and predictable way, these two processes might differ from each other in terms of the mechanisms that govern them.

Possible differences might stem from the fact that mating effort is primarily driven by sexual attraction that serves reproductive purposes, whereas attachment is more related to emotional bonding, which promotes care for a partner and offspring (see Birnbaum, 2016). Indeed, the poor relationship outcomes observed in insecurely attached individuals often result from difficulties with emotional closeness, trust, and communication (Collins et al., 2002). Studies show that the association between insecure attachment and low relationship satisfaction is moderated by difficulties in emotion regulation (e.g., Mosannenzadeh et al., 2024; Sousa-Gomes et al., 2023). Some aspects of these difficulties, such as poor conflict resolution skills (Scheeren et al., 2014) and negative affectivity (Davila et al., 1998), can make insecurely attached individuals more susceptible to romantic relationship conflicts.

In contrast, the mating effort may influence romantic relationship functioning in a more specific way–through sexual attitudes and needs. Research has linked unrestricted sociosexuality to lower romantic relationship satisfaction (e.g., Neto, 2015; Webster et al., 2015). Aspects of high mating effort that may be particularly detrimental to long-term relationship quality can include a preference for novelty in sexual partners (Little et al., 2014), an increased risk of infidelity (Mattingly et al., 2011), and sexual desire discrepancy (Santtila et al., 2007; Willoughby et al., 2014).

The fact that parenting effort was uniquely predicted by higher attachment avoidance aligns with numerous studies highlighting the poor parenting characteristics and outcomes associated with avoidant individuals. According to a meta-analysis of more than 60 studies by Jones et al. (2014), avoidant parents tend to perceive parenting as less satisfying and meaningful, and generally hold a more negative orientation toward parenthood. In relationships with their children, they are typically more disengaged, less responsive, and less supportive (Jones et al., 2015). These findings appear to support Belsky’s (1997) theoretical work, which portrays attachment avoidance as an adaptive strategy that promotes low parental investment by favoring the production of relatively numerous offspring while allocating minimal resources to each.

Our finding that parenting effort was not predicted by anxious attachment style can also be interpreted as consistent with previous research showing that across various aspects of parenting, such as the desire to have children, feelings of closeness to children, sensitivity, responsiveness, and parental satisfaction, the results are more consistent for attachment avoidance than for attachment anxiety (see Jones et al., 2015). While attachment avoidance is a strong predictor of negative parenting behaviors and poorer parental outcomes, the associations between attachment anxiety and parenting appear more nuanced and difficult to interpret (Jones et al., 2015). The complex nature of anxious attachment in the parenting domain is also reflected in Belsky's perspective on attachment. He notes that anxiously attached individuals are more likely to remain childless. However, when they do become parents, they often experience heightened anxiety about their children and struggle with separation, which can lead to overparenting behaviors (Belsky, 1997). Although such behaviors may negatively impact children's well-being, their underlying motivation is often a strong desire to protect offspring and ensure their success (Jiao & Segrin, 2021). Taken together, our findings support both empirical and theoretical perspectives suggesting that anxious attachment may not be clearly associated with low parenting effort, unlike avoidant attachment.

The Importance of Early Developmental Context

LH dimensions (mating effort and parenting effort) were affected in predicted directions by early developmental experiences from a broad ecological context, that included harshness and unpredictability of developmental environment (e.g., relocation, father absence, low household income, and lack of stability), as well as childhood neighborhood conditions. Concurrently, attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were predicted by the harshness and unpredictability of the developmental environment, but not by childhood neighborhood conditions. These results are consistent with the fact that the LHT approach puts an emphasis on the importance of a broad early ecological background (Ellis et al., 2022), whereas attachment theory focuses on the caretaking environment (Goldberg, 2013).

Contrary to the assumptions, having higher educated parents predicted lower parenting effort and higher mating effort in participants. Although this seems to contradict traditional LH patterns, similar study results have been reported by Richardson et al. (2017a, 2017b), who found a relationship between higher socioeconomic status in childhood and greater engagement in mating competition later in life. One of the possible explanations can be that individuals from better-off families might be more active in the mating market due to their higher mate value. Such a possibility, however, seems to be more likely for male participants, since in other studies the effect of higher mate value increasing mating effort and decreasing interest in parenting has been found only in men (e.g., Apicella & Marlowe, 2007; Beall & Schaller, 2014). The possible explanation, that can be of greater importance for our female participants, stems from the fact that children of higher-educated parents are more likely to be educationally and occupationally successful themselves (Dubow et al., 2009). This occupational success is often inversely associated with reproductive success in adulthood, especially for girls (Barthold et al., 2012; Kravdal & Rindfuss, 2008; Wood & Newton, 2006). It is also important to note that education and social class tend to correlate with more liberal views on sexuality (Loftus, 2001; Treas, 2002; Urban, 2024). Parents with more liberal attitudes toward sex tend to be more accepting of teenage sexuality, which in turn contributes to the development of more permissive sexual attitudes in young adults (McAllister et al., 2022; Nurgitz et al., 2021). Additionally, open communication about sexual matters at home promotes safe sex behaviors among young people (e.g., contraception and condom use), which are crucial for preventing unplanned pregnancies (Aspy et al., 2007; Whitaker & Miller, 2000; Widman et al., 2016). The latter might also be relevant to parenting effort by allowing individuals to align their personal goals with reproductive outcomes, such as choosing voluntary childlessness when parenting is incompatible with career ambitions or other individualistic pursuits.

Interestingly, higher attachment avoidance was predicted by lower maternal, but higher paternal education. Most studies on parental education and attachment focus on the positive role of maternal education in promoting secure attachment and are in line with the results obtained in our study (e.g., Güngör & Bornstein, 2010; Moullin et al., 2018). Although less is known about the role of paternal education, the existing study results do not corroborate our findings. In other studies, paternal education has been found to be either irrelevant to the children's attachment style (Antonucci et al., 2022), or to promote secure attachment between a father and a child (Teufl et al., 2020). Higher-educated fathers also have been found to be more involved in childcare (Henz, 2019), and more supportive to their children (Cabrera et al., 2007). Therefore, until our results are replicated in independent studies, they should be treated with caution.

Limitations and Future Directions

One of the limitations of the current study is its cross-sectional design. Conducting a longitudinal research project with repeat examinations of the same individuals at different stages of their romantic relationships could verify to what extent the associations we found remain consistent over time. In addition, it could help with more accurate assessments of different aspects of the developmental environment and possibly allow collecting of more objective data about the participants’ attachment. Also, in the context of our results, a potential benefit of conducting a longitudinal study would be to explore distinct developmental pathways through which attachment styles and LH patterns are linked with relationship outcomes.

In the current study, we did not control for the participants’ duration of romantic relationships or their children's age. Controlling for the age of children in future studies may be valuable in relation to results regarding parenting efforts. Controlling for relationship duration, in turn, could be relevant for relationship outcomes, although, as some research reviews have shown (Karney & Bradbury, 2020), at least romantic relationship satisfaction may remain relatively constant over the course of a long-term relationship.

In future research, assessing both partners in a relationship would help to obtain a more holistic perspective on romantic relationship outcomes and shed more light on the current results. For instance, in the current study parenting effort turned out to play a relatively insignificant role in predicting relationship outcomes. It is likely, however, that interrelation between the parenting efforts of romantic partners would be a stronger predictor of romantic relationship satisfaction and conflict, especially in the instances of vast disproportion or high compatibility between the amount of effort the partners put into parenting.

Finally, in the present study, ∼70% of the sample had higher education, which is generally associated with a slower LH. This may limit the generalizability of the findings and reflects a broader challenge in LHT research, where samples often overrepresent individuals with higher education, potentially biasing conclusions about LH variation. Additionally, the sample was predominantly female (77%), which may further constrain the applicability of the results, given known sex differences in many LH-relevant behaviors and traits, such as attitudes toward sexual behaviors (see Copping & Richardson, 2020). Future studies should aim to include more socioeconomically, educationally, and sex-diverse samples to provide a more comprehensive picture of LH differences across populations.

Conclusion

The main goal of the present study was to verify whether mating and parenting effort would mediate the relationship between developmental environment and relationship outcomes independently from attachment. Our analyses suggest that whereas mating effort can be an independent predictor of relationship satisfaction and relationship conflict, parenting effort most likely cannot. Moreover, the present study showed little support for the connection between mating effort or parenting effort and insecure attachment styles. Our findings add to the existing literature on LHT and attachment. Although both mating effort, parenting effort, and attachment style are affected by early environment and they all can predict the same relationship outcomes, the developmental processes through which they do so may differ.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-evp-10.1177_14747049251355861 - Supplemental material for Life History, Attachment and Romantic Relationship Outcomes in an Eastern European Adult Sample
sj-docx-1-evp-10.1177_14747049251355861.docx (17.7KB, docx)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-evp-10.1177_14747049251355861 for Life History, Attachment and Romantic Relationship Outcomes in an Eastern European Adult Sample by Monika Kwiek, Daniel J. Kruger and Przemyslaw Piotrowski in Evolutionary Psychology

Footnotes

Ethical Considerations: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Health and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Michigan (HUM00191381) and the Ethics Committee at the Jagiellonian University (nr rej.:74/2020). All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating.

Funding: The publication has been supported by a grant from the Priority Research Area (Society of the Future) under the StrategicProgramme Excellence Initiative at Jagiellonian University.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

  1. Afifi T. O., Mota N., Sareen J., MacMillan H. L. (2017). The relationships between harsh physical punishment and child maltreatment in childhood and intimate partner violence in adulthood. BMC Public Health, 17(493), 1–10. 10.1186/s12889-017-4359-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert G., Richardson G. B., Arnocky S., Senveli Z., Hodges-Simeon C. R. (2021). The development and psychometric evaluation of a new mating effort questionnaire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(2), 511–530. 10.1007/s10508-020-01799-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonucci L. A., Musso P., Taurisano P., Coppola G., Terlizzi M., Cassibba R. (2022). A combination of maternal and paternal features discriminates between children with secure and insecure attachment style. Psicologia, 36(2), 52–65. 10.17575/psicologia.1820 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Apicella C. L., Marlowe F. W. (2007). Men’s reproductive investment decisions: Mating, parenting, and self-perceived mate value. Human Nature, 18(1), 22–34. 10.1007/BF02820844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aspy C. B., Vesely S. K., Oman R. F., Rodine S., Marshall L., McLeroy K. (2007). Parental communication and youth sexual behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 449–466. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbaro N., Shackelford T. K. (2019). Environmental unpredictability in childhood is associated with anxious romantic attachment and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(2), 240–269. 10.1177/0886260516640548 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barthold J. A., Myrskylä M., Jones O. R. (2012). Childlessness drives the sex difference in the association between income and reproductive success of modern Europeans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 628–638. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beall A. T., Schaller M. (2014). Affective implications of the mating/parenting trade-off: Short-term mating motives and desirability as a short-term mate predict less intense tenderness responses to infants. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 112–117. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Belsky J. (1997). Attachment, mating, and parenting. Human Nature, 8(4), 361–381. 10.1007/BF02913039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Belsky J., Steinberg L., Draper P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62(4), 647–670. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01558.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Birnbaum G. E. (2016). Attachment and sexual mating: The joint operation of separate motivational systems. In Cassidy J., Shaver P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 464–483). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Birnbaum G. E., Mikulincer M., Austerlitz M. (2013). A fiery conflict: Attachment orientations and the effects of relational conflict on sexual motivation. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 294–310. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01413.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bogaert A. F., Sadava S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9(2), 191–204. 10.1111/1475-6811.00012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowlby J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss, vol. 1. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  15. Brassard A., Shaver P. R., Lussier Y. (2007). Attachment, sexual experience, and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 14(3), 475–493. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00166.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Butzer B., Campbell L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141–154. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cabrera N. J., Shannon J. D., Tamis-LeMonda C. (2007). Fathers’ influence on their children’s cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 208–213. 10.1080/10888690701762100 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Campbell L., Simpson J. A., Boldry J., Kashy D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510–531. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Campbell L., Stanton S. C. (2019). Adult attachment and trust in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 148–151. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Chisholm J. S. (1993). Death, hope, and sex: Life-history theory and the development of reproductive strategies. Current Anthropology, 34(1), 1–24. 10.1086/204131 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chisholm J. S. (1996). The evolutionary ecology of attachment organization. Human Nature, 7(1), 1–37. 10.1007/BF02733488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Collins N. L., Cooper M. L., Albino A., Allard L. (2002). Psychosocial vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of attachment style differences in relationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 965–1008. 10.1111/1467-6494.05029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Collins N. L., Read S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Colman R. A., Widom C. S. (2004). Childhood abuse and neglect and adult intimate relationships: A prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(11), 1133–1151. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Copping L. T., Campbell A., Muncer S. (2014). Psychometrics and life history strategy: The structure and validity of the high K strategy scale. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 200–222. 10.1177/147470491401200115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Copping L. T., Campbell A., Muncer S., Richardson G. B. (2017). The psychometric evaluation of human life histories: A reply to Figueredo, Cabeza de Baca, Black, Garcia, Fernandes, Wolf, and Woodley (2015). Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1–14. 10.1177/147470491501300202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Copping L. T., Richardson G. B. (2020). Studying sex differences in psychosocial life history indicators. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6(1), 47–59. 10.1007/s40806-019-00211-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Cui M., Fincham F. D., Durtschi J. A. (2011). The effect of parental divorce on young adults’ romantic relationship dissolution: What makes a difference? Personal Relationships, 18(3), 410–426. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01306.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Davila J., Bradbury T. N., Fincham F. (1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of the association between adult attachment and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 467–484. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00183.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Del Giudice M. (2009). Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 1–67. 10.1017/S0140525X09000016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Dubow E. F., Boxer P., Huesmann L. R. (2009). Long-term effects of parents’ education on children’s educational and occupational success: Mediation by family interactions, child aggression, and teenage aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Q, 55(3), 224–249. 10.1353/mpq.0.0030 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ellis B. J., Figueredo A. J., Brumbach B. H., Schlomer G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20(2), 204–268. 10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ellis B. J., Sheridan M. A., Belsky J., McLaughlin K. A. (2022). Why and how does early adversity influence development? Toward an integrated model of dimensions of environmental experience. Development and Psychopathology, 34(2), 447–471. 10.1017/S0954579421001838 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Feeney J., Fitzgerald J. (2019). Attachment, conflict and relationship quality: Laboratory-based and clinical insights. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 127–131. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Figueredo A. J., Wolf P. S. A., Olderbak S. G., Gladden P. R., Fernandes H. B. F., Wenner C., Rushton J. P. (2014). The psychometric assessment of human life history strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 148–186. 10.1037/h0099837 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fisher R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Dover. [Google Scholar]
  37. French J. E., Whitley K. A., Altgelt E. E., Meltzer A. L. (2020). Attachment anxiety in young adulthood is associated with childhood unpredictability and predicts intentions to engage in unprotected sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109858. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109858 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Friesen M., Woodward L., Horwood L., Fergusson D. (2010). Childhood exposure to sexual abuse and partnership outcomes at age 30. Psychological Medicine, 40(4), 679–688. 10.1017/S0033291709990389 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gadgil M., Bossert W. H. (1970). Life historical consequences of natural selection. The American Naturalist, 104(935), 1–24. 10.1086/282637 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gentzler A. L., Kerns K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11(2), 249–265. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00081.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gleeson G., Fitzgerald A. (2014). Exploring the association between adult attachment styles in romantic relationships, perceptions of parents from childhood and relationship satisfaction. Health, 6, 1643–1661. 10.4236/health.2014.613196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Godbout N., Daspe MÈ, Lussier Y., Sabourin S., Dutton D., Hébert M. (2017). Early exposure to violence, relationship violence, and relationship satisfaction in adolescents and emerging adults: The role of romantic attachment. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(2), 127–137. 10.1037/tra0000136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Goldberg S. (2013). Attachment and development. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gruijters S. L., Fleuren B. P. (2018). Measuring the unmeasurable. Human Nature, 29(1), 33–44. 10.1007/s12110-017-9307-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Güngör D., Bornstein M. H. (2010). Culture-general and-specific associations of attachment avoidance and anxiety with perceived parental warmth and psychological control among Turk and Belgian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 33(5), 593–602. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hendrick S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98. 10.2307/352430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Henz U. (2019). Fathers’ involvement with their children in the United Kingdom. Demographic Research, 40, 865–896. 10.4054/DemRes.2019.40.30 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Heyman R. E., Slep A. M. S. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 864–870. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00864.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Impett E. A., Peplau L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 360–370. 10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00075 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Jiao J., Segrin C. (2021). Parent-emerging-adult-child attachment and overparenting. Family Relations, 70(3), 859–865. 10.1111/fare.12473 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Jones J. D., Cassidy J., Shaver P. R. (2015). Parents’ self-reported attachment styles: A review of links with parenting behaviors, emotions, and cognitions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 44–76. 10.1177/1088868314541858 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kaplan H. S., Gangestad S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In Buss D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 68–95). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  53. Karney B. R., Bradbury T. N. (2020). Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 100–116. 10.1111/jomf.12635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kravdal Ø, Rindfuss R. R. (2008). Changing relationships between education and fertility: A study of women and men born 1940 to 1964. American Sociological Review, 73(5), 854–873. 10.1177/000312240807300508 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kruger D. J. (2017). Brief self-report scales assessing life history dimensions of mating and parenting effort. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1–9. 10.1177/1474704916673840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kruger D. J., Jonsson E. (2019). The Viking and The Farmer: Alternative male life histories portrayed in the romantic poetry of Erik Gustaf Geijer. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, 3, 17–38. 10.26613/esic.3.2.141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kruger D. J., Reischl T. M., Gee G. C. (2007). Neighborhood social conditions mediate the association between physical deterioration and mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 261–271. 10.1007/s10464-007-9139-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Kwiek M., Piotrowski P. (2020). Do criminals live faster than soldiers and firefighters? A comparison of biodemographic and psychosocial dimensions of life history theory. Human Nature, 31(3), 272–295. 10.1007/s12110-020-09374-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Little A. C., DeBruine L. M., Jones B. C. (2014). Sex differences in attraction to familiar and unfamiliar opposite-sex faces: Men prefer novelty and women prefer familiarity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(6), 973–981. 10.1007/s10508-013-0120-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Loftus J. (2001). America's liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American Sociological Review, 66(5), 762–782. 10.1177/000312240106600507 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Loureto G. D. L., Gouveia V. V., da Fonsêca P. N., Gonçalves M. P., dos Santos W. S., Monteiro R. P., Freires L. A. (2022). Predicting responses to conflicts in romantic relationships from life history strategies, psychopathy, and values. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 8(1), 10–19. 10.1007/s40806-021-00308-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Maleck S., Papp L. M. (2015). Childhood risky family environments and romantic relationship functioning among young adult dating couples. Journal of Family Issues, 36(5), 567–588. 10.1177/0192513X13491 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Mattingly B. A., Clark E. M., Weidler D. J., Bullock M., Hackathorn J., Blankmeyer K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 222–226. 10.1080/00224540903536162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. McAllister P., Astle S., Vennum A. (2022). Sex feelings: A mediated group path analysis of the association of perceptions of parent communicated sexual values with sexual attitudes and outcomes in emerging adulthood. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(1), 112–121. 10.1080/00224499.2020.1869143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. McCarthy G., Taylor A. (1999). Avoidant/ambivalent attachment style as a mediator between abusive childhood experiences and adult relationship difficulties. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40(3), 465–477. 10.1111/1469-7610.00463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Mosannenzadeh F., Luijten M., MacIejewski D. F., Wiewel G. V., Karremans J. C. (2024). Adult attachment and emotion regulation flexibility in romantic relationships. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9), 758. 10.3390/bs14090758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Moullin S., Waldfogel J., Washbrook E. (2018). Parent–child attachment as a mechanism of intergenerational (dis) advantage. Families, Relationships And Societies, 7(2), 265–284. 10.1332/204674317X15071998786492 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Neto F. (2015). Revisiting correlates of sociosexuality for men and women: The role of love relationships and psychological maladjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 106–110. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Nettle D., Frankenhuis W. E. (2019). The evolution of life-history theory: A bibliometric analysis of an interdisciplinary research area. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1899), 20190040. 10.1098/rspb.2019.0040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Nettle D., Frankenhuis W. E. (2020). Life-history theory in psychology and evolutionary biology: One research programme or two? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1803), 20190490. 10.1098/rstb.2019.0490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Nurgitz R., Pacheco R. A., Senn C. Y., Hobden K. L. (2021). The impact of sexual education and socialization on sexual satisfaction, attitudes, and self-efficacy. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(2), 265–277. 10.3138/cjhs.2021-0028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Olderbak S. G., Figueredo A. J. (2009). Predicting romantic relationship satisfaction from life history strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5-6), 604–610. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Olderbak S. G., Figueredo A. J. (2010). Life history strategy as a longitudinal predictor of relationship satisfaction and dissolution. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 234–239. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Parade S. H., Supple A. J., Helms H. M. (2012). Parenting during childhood predicts relationship satisfaction in young adulthood: A prospective longitudinal perspective. Marriage & Family Review, 48(2), 150–169. 10.1080/01494929.2011.629078 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Pizzirani B., Karantzas G. C., Roisman G. I., Simpson J. A. (2021). Early childhood antecedents of dehumanization perpetration in adult romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1175–1183. 10.1177/1948550620974892 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Richardson G. B., Dariotis J. K., Lai M. H. (2017a). From environment to mating competition and super-K in a predominantly urban sample of young adults. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1474704916670165. 10.1177/1474704916670165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Richardson G. B., Sanning B. K., Lai M. H., Copping L. T., Hardesty P. H., Kruger D. J. (2017b). On the psychometric study of human life history strategies: State of the science and evidence of two independent dimensions. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1474704916666840. 10.1177/1474704916666840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. River L. M., O’Reilly Treter M., Rhoades G. K., Narayan A. J. (2022). Parent–child relationship quality in the family of origin and later romantic relationship functioning: A systematic review. Family Process, 61(1), 259–277. 10.1111/famp.12650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Santtila P., Wager I., Witting K., Harlaar N., Jern P., Johansson A. D. A., Sandnabba N. K. (2007). Discrepancies between sexual desire and sexual activity: Gender differences and associations with relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 34(1), 31–44. 10.1080/00926230701620548 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Schade L. C., Sandberg J., Bean R., Busby D., Coyne S. (2013). Using technology to connect in romantic relationships: Effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12(4), 314–338. 10.1080/15332691.2013.836051 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Scheeren P., Vieira R. V. D. A., Goulart V. R., Wagner A. (2014). Marital quality and attachment: The mediator role of conflict resolution styles. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 24(58), 177–186. 10.1590/1982-43272458201405 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Sear R. (2020). Do human ‘life history strategies’ exist? Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(6), 513–526. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Seiffge-Krenke I., Overbeek G., Vermulst A. (2010). Parent–child relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 159–171. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Simpson J. A., Collins W. A., Salvatore J. E. (2011). The impact of early interpersonal experience on adult romantic relationship functioning: Recent findings from the Minnesota longitudinal study of risk and adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 355–359. 10.1177/0963721411418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Sousa-Gomes V., Lemos L., Moreira D., Ribeiro F. N., Fávero M. (2023). Predictive effect of romantic attachment and difficulties in emotional regulation on the dyadic adjustment. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(2), 676–691. 10.1007/s13178-022-00708-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Stackert R. A., Bursik K. (2003). Why am I unsatisfied? Adult attachment style, gendered irrational relationship beliefs, and young adult romantic relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1419–1429. 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00124-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Stover C. S., Choi M. J., Mayes L. C. (2018). The moderating role of attachment on the association between childhood maltreatment and adolescent dating violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 679–688. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.09.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Szepsenwol O., Simpson J. A. (2019). Attachment within life history theory: An evolutionary perspective on individual differences in attachment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 65–70. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Szepsenwol O., Simpson J. A., Griskevicius V., Zamir O., Young E. S., Shoshani A., Doron G. (2022). The effects of childhood unpredictability and harshness on emotional control and relationship quality: A life history perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 34(2), 607–620. 10.1017/S0954579421001371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Szepsenwol O., Zamir O., Simpson J. A. (2019). The effect of early-life harshness and unpredictability on intimate partner violence in adulthood: A life history perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(5), 1542–1556. 10.1177/0265407518806680 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Teufl L., Deichmann F., Supper B., Ahnert L. (2020). How fathers’ attachment security and education contribute to early child language skills above and beyond mothers: Parent-child conversation under scrutiny. Attachment & Human Development, 22(1), 71–84. 10.1080/14616734.2019.1589063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Treas J. (2002). How cohorts, education, and ideology shaped a new sexual revolution on American attitudes toward nonmarital sex, 1972–1998. Sociological Perspectives, 45(3), 267–283. 10.1525/sop.2002.45.3.267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Urban N. (2024). Social class and sexual liberalism in contemporary China: An analysis of attitudes towards sexuality. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 21(3), 1233–1246. 10.1007/s13178-024-00943-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Vaillancourt-Morel M. P., Rellini A. H., Godbout N., Sabourin S., Bergeron S. (2019). Intimacy mediates the relation between maltreatment in childhood and sexual and relationship satisfaction in adulthood: A dyadic longitudinal analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 803–814. 10.1007/s10508-018-1309-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Webster G. D., Laurenceau J. P., Smith C. V., Mahaffey A. L., Bryan A. D., Brunell A. B. (2015). An investment model of sociosexuality, relationship satisfaction, and commitment: Evidence from dating, engaged, and newlywed couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 112–126. 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.02.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Wei M., Mallinckrodt D. W., Vogel B., L D. (2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204. 10.1080/00223890701268041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Whitaker D. J., Miller K. S. (2000). Parent-adolescent discussions about sex and condoms: Impact on peer influences of sexual risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(2), 251–273. 10.1177/0743558400152004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Wickrama K., O'Neal C. W. (2016). The socioeconomic pathways leading to romantic relationship outcomes: A genetically informed early life course investigation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 492–508. 10.1111/jora.12207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Widman L., Choukas-Bradley S., Noar S. M., Nesi J., Garrett K. (2016). Parent-adolescent sexual communication and adolescent safer sex behavior: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(1), 52–61. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Willoughby B. J., Farero A. M., Busby D. M. (2014). Exploring the effects of sexual desire discrepancy among married couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 551–562. 10.1007/s10508-013-0181-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Wood G. J., Newton J. (2006). Childlessness and women managers: ‘Choice’, context and discourses. Gender, Work & Organization, 13(4), 338–358. 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2006.00311.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Zacchilli T. L., Hendrick C., Hendrick S. S. (2009). The romantic partner conflict scale: A new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(8), 1073–1096. 10.1177/0265407509347 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

sj-docx-1-evp-10.1177_14747049251355861 - Supplemental material for Life History, Attachment and Romantic Relationship Outcomes in an Eastern European Adult Sample
sj-docx-1-evp-10.1177_14747049251355861.docx (17.7KB, docx)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-evp-10.1177_14747049251355861 for Life History, Attachment and Romantic Relationship Outcomes in an Eastern European Adult Sample by Monika Kwiek, Daniel J. Kruger and Przemyslaw Piotrowski in Evolutionary Psychology

Articles from Evolutionary Psychology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES