Original title: Why males compete rather than care, with an application to supplying collective goods
Sara L. Loo, Danya Rose, Michael Weight, Kristen Hawkes +1 · July 2026
Why do males put more energy into fighting for mates than raising children? Caring for offspring helps more of them survive to maturity. Competing gives a male the chance to father more total offspring. To understand this trade-off, researchers built a dynamic model testing the reproductive benefits of each path. They found that even when paternal careEffort by a father to help his own offspring survive, like feeding or protecting them. strongly helps children survive, tiny competitive payoffs can outweigh the benefits of providing care. This leaves males with higher evolutionary fitness when they focus on mating competition rather than parenting across many conditions. The authors also applied their model to men competing for hunting reputations by chasing big game that feeds the whole group. In that scenario, either strategy can win depending on the group's starting mix. Crucially, the larger the shared benefit from the hunt, the more individuals evolve to supply it.
Imagine you can either spend your time tutoring your own kids after school or practicing to win a spelling bee where the prize is extra school supplies for all kids in your class. If you practice, your kids get no direct help but the prize helps everyone, including yours. But if tutoring makes your kids slightly more likely to pass a test, while winning the bee gives a small extra chance at supplies for the whole group, you might still choose to compete—especially if other parents are already tutoring. In this paper, the tutor is paternal care and the speller's prize is the competitive benefit; the model shows when one beats the other.
This matters because it helps explain why males in many species—including humans—spend energy fighting or displaying instead of raising young. The model shows that small competitive gains easily outweigh even large care benefits, so selection can favor competition. For humans, it suggests hunting for shared food might be a form of competition that looks cooperative.
The abstract does not specify whether the model includes indirect costs like injury from competition or group-level trade-offs. It tests only two alternative pathways, not mixed strategies or feedbacks like female choice. The application to hunting relies on a specific interpretation of reputations and collective goods, which may not generalize to all human societies or other species.
Ask anything about this paper. Answers come from its abstract, and say so when the abstract doesn't cover your question.
Why males compete rather than care, with an application to supplying collective goods — Sara L. Loo, Danya Rose, Michael Weight et al.
Abstract licence: CC0
Explanation generated by Synthesis from the abstract — it is not the original paper. This is a preprint, so it hasn't necessarily been peer reviewed.