Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-021-00166-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Differences between Behavior and Maturation:

Developmental Effects of Father Absence

Jessica A. Hehman1   · Catherine A. Salmon1
Received: 19 January 2021 / Revised: 30 March 2021 / Accepted: 1 April 2021 /
Published online: 14 April 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
Objective  A substantial body of research has investigated the effects of early fam-
ily environments on sexual maturity and behavior, focusing mostly on effects on
females. The purpose of the current study was to test the assumption that physiolog-
ical maturation and casual sexual behavior are similarly influenced by early environ-
mental stressors such as father absence (FA). Specifically, the current study investi-
gated whether FA affects males’ and females’ casual sexual behavior and pubertal
timing in the same way.
Methods Young adults (89 females, 46 males) were asked to report the ages at
which they lived with their biological father, their casual sexual behavior, and the
age at which they experienced a major pubertal marker (menarche for females, first
nocturnal emission for males).
Results  FA by itself did not predict casual sexual behavior, although it did predict
pubertal timing such that FA was associated with earlier pubertal timing. Interaction
effects, however, indicate the effect of FA on behavior and maturation was sex-spe-
cific. For females, FA was associated with more casual sexual behavior; whereas, for
males, FA was associated with less casual sexual behavior. With regard to matura-
tion, FA was associated with earlier pubertal timing for males but did not have much
an effect on females’ pubertal timing.
Conclusions  Findings from the current study suggest the effects of FA on pubertal
timing and casual sexual behavior are not specific to females. Furthermore, these
findings suggest that sexual maturation and behavior may not be influenced in the
same way by early environmental stressors.

Keywords  Father absence · Sexual behavior · Sexual maturation · Sex differences

* Jessica A. Hehman
jessica_hehman@redlands.edu
1
Department of Psychology, University of Redlands, 1200 E. Colton Ave, Redlands, CA 92373,
USA

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 167

A substantial body of research has been conducted on the effects of early family
environments on the sexual maturity and behavior of adolescents and young adults.
The majority of studies have focused on effects on females rather than males (though
for exceptions see Bogaert, 2005; Hehman & Salmon, 2019; Salmon et  al., 2016;
Shenk & Scelza, 2012; Sheppard & Sear, 2011) and on the environment during the
first 5–7 years of life (Draper & Harpending, 1982; Ellis et al., 2003; Quinlan, 2003).
Hehman and Salmon (2019) reported results that suggested developmental effects of
father absence on casual sexual behavior and life history strategy such that for both
sexes biological father presence growing up was associated with fewer casual sex
partners and slower life history. However, the timing of father absence was associ-
ated with different patterns of effects by sex. When father absence occurred dur-
ing middle childhood, males exhibited faster life history strategies whereas females
exhibited slower life history strategies. However, when father absence occurred dur-
ing adolescence, males exhibited slower life history strategies and females exhibited
faster life history strategies. Hehman and Salmon (2019), however, did not address
the question of whether similar patterns of effects are found for physiological matu-
ration as they are for behavior. The current study attempts to address the question
of developmental effects of father absence on pubertal timing versus casual sexual
behavior.

Psychosocial Acceleration and Father Absence

Psychosocial acceleration theory integrates evolutionary and developmental per-

spectives in an attempt to explain how childhood experiences can lead to divergent
developmental pathways with regard to sexual maturation and behavior (Belsky
et al., 1991). Specifically, psychosocial acceleration theory suggests that, as a result
of natural selection, early environmental cues influence subsequent pubertal timing
and reproductive strategies contingent on the environment in order to shape indi-
viduals’ development and behaviors to best fit their environments. As such, faster
life history develops in response to stressful childhood environments resulting in
accelerated sexual maturation, increased sexual promiscuity, and less investment in
offspring (Belsky, 2012). In other words, when raised in a dangerous or unstable
environment, the body and mind develop in such a way to speed up reproduction
(i.e. an adaptive response to environmental challenges). Alternatively, a stable and
safe environment leads to the development of a slower life history, characterized by
later sexual maturation, decreased sexual promiscuity, and greater investment in off-
spring (Belsky, 2012). One characteristic of stressful childhood environments that
has received a lot of attention with regard to sexual maturity and behavior is grow-
ing up in a father absent home.
It has been suggested that the presence or absence of biological fathers affects
the reproductive strategies of their offspring (Draper & Harpending, 1982). Spe-
cifically, consistent with psychosocial acceleration theory, research on the devel-
opment of girls has shown that girls raised in father absent homes are more likely
to reach sexual maturation earlier, engage in sexual activity earlier, have more
sexual partners, and younger age of first pregnancy relative to girls raised in

13
168 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

father present homes (Anderson, 2015; Ellis et al., 2003; Quinlan, 2003). These
findings were supported by a 2014 meta-analysis of correlations between father
absence and daughters’ age of menarche indicating that father absence is asso-
ciated with earlier pubertal timing in females (Webster et  al., 2014). Recent
research has suggested, however, that rather than father absence per se it is the
quantity and quality of paternal investment that influences females’ sexual matu-
rity and behavior (DelPriore et al., 2017; Ellis & Essex, 2007; Ellis et al., 2012;
Tither & Ellis, 2008). It has also been suggested that genetics may also play a
role in the relationship between father absence and sexual behavior (Mustanski
et al., 2004; Schlomer & Cho, 2017). A nationwide Danish cohort study reported
that early maternal age at menarche was associated with earlier pubertal devel-
opment and later maternal age at menarche was associated with later pubertal
development in sons and daughters with larger effects for menarche and breast
development in daughters (Sørensen et  al., 2018). Some work based on math-
ematical modeling has posited that genetic confounding explains the effects of
father absence (Barbaro et al., 2017). However, in a test of the genetic confound-
ing hypothesis (i.e., gene-environment correlations cause spurious relationships
between father absence and females’ age at menarche and first birth), Gaydosh
et al. (2017) used molecular genetic data and found that father absence and poly-
genic scores each independently predicted reproductive timing. This suggests that
(at least for females) father absence, as an index of stressful childhood environ-
ments, explains unique variance in sexual behaviors beyond genetic inheritance.
Not all studies examining early environmental effects have reported an accel-
eration effect of father absence (Kyweluk et al., 2018; Sohn, 2017) and this lack
of effects has been more commonly reported in non-western populations, includ-
ing the Philippines and Indonesia. This concentration of effects among so-called
WEIRD populations (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic)
has been noted by a number of researchers who have suggested that the cross-cul-
tural data does not provide support for a “universal acceleration” of puberty as a
result of father absence (Sear et al., 2019). However, it is not clear that one would
expect the same effect everywhere as not all adaptations produce the same out-
put in variable environments. For example, a study of menarcheal timing in the
Philippines indicated that better nutrition accelerated menarche while develop-
mental cues of mortality or financial instability did not (Kyweluk et al., 2018). In
most WEIRD populations, nutrition is less frequently a limiting factor on puber-
tal development. In the end, psychosocial acceleration models should be sensitive
to the fitness impact of early reproduction and in environments where there may
be advantages to delaying reproduction. In such environments where investing
in (or being invested in by) extended family is associated with a corresponding
inclusive fitness benefit, father absence may be a less relevant cue than in most
WEIRD populations. Some research in support of the impact of kin as alternative
sources of fitness comes from Kim and Sohn (2018) who reported that having
more siblings was related to later menarche, particularly for those who were ear-
lier born. One challenge of integrating much of this work, however, is assessing
biological effects (menarche or male equivalents) and behavioral ones (such as
sexual debut and casual sex).

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 169

Sex‑Specific Developmental Effects

As previously noted, a majority of the work in this area has focused on females.
Yet from evolutionary and developmental perspectives, it does not make sense that
natural selection would sensitize females’ sexual development and behavior to early
environmental cues regarding durability (or lack thereof) of pair bonds, but not influ-
ence the development and behavior of males. In addition, why should individuals
only be sensitive to these cues within the first 5 to 7 years of life and not beyond that
developmental period? And indeed there is some evidence the males are influenced
by a variety of early environmental factors (Anderson, 2015; Bogaert, 2005; James
et al., 2012; Sheppard & Sear, 2011; Wilson & Daly, 1997) including father absence.
However, the lack of consistent evidence concerning early puberty in males
compared to females is likely a contributing factor to the focus on females (James
et  al., 2012). This combined with the challenges of operationalizing onset of
puberty in males (i.e., absence of clear marker equivalent to menarche in females)
has focused much of the attention on females. Some recent work has suggested
that this lack of findings for males may be an artifact of using father absence as
a dichotomous variable (absent vs present) and focusing on father absence within
the first 5 to 7 years of life. Bogaert (2005), for example, found that father absence
at age 14 predicted earlier puberty for both males (assayed by voice change) and
females (assayed by menarche). A study investigating the effect of father absence
in a sample of British men found that, after controlling for other indicators of
childhood adversity, that father absence by age 7 was associated with early repro-
duction. Father absence between ages 7 and 11 was associated with less likeli-
hood of marriage by age 23, suggesting that these males were less likely to invest
in long-term relationships relative to men who experienced father absence at
other developmental stages. Interestingly, father absence between ages 11 and
16 was associated with delayed puberty (Sheppard & Sear, 2011). Other work
(James et  al., 2012) suggests that while low quality familial relationships were
associated with earlier sexual debut for both males and females, earlier puberty as
a function of low-quality relationships was found only for females. It does appear
that there are sex-specific developmental effects of early environmental cues such
as father absence (Hehman & Salmon, 2019).

Physiological Versus Behavioral Effects

Some studies of the effects of father absence have focused on behavioral out-
comes such as early first sex, early first birth, or casual sexual behavior (Ellis
et al., 2003; Hehman & Salmon, 2019; Mendle et al., 2009; Salmon et al., 2016;
Sitokozile & Herbert, 2019). Others have concentrated on physiological mile-
stones such as age of menarche for females or first nocturnal emission or voice
cracking for males (Bogaert, 2005, 2008; Sørensen et al., 2018). It would be use-
ful to investigate the effects of father absence (not just limited to the first 5 to

13
170 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

7 years) on the pubertal timing of males and females to determine whether there
are sex specific developmental effects on pubertal timing. Previous research find-
ings of delayed puberty for males whose father left when they were between the
ages of 11 and 16 (Sheppard & Sear, 2011) and no effect of father absence occur-
ring between the ages of 8 and 15 on females’ pubertal timing (Sheppard et al.,
2014) suggest such sex-specific developmental effects on sexual maturity may
exist dependent on when during development father absence occurs.
There is often an assumption that early onset of menarche inevitably results in
earlier sexual debut, however, some researchers’ have noted that this does not have
to be the case. Biology influences behavior and the converse is also the case (as may
be the case in dieting and reproductive suppression, for a discussion see Salmon,
2017). A secondary data and structural equation modeling study (Richardson et al.,
2018) reported that for females that had experienced sexual debut, exposure to tem-
porary father absence (consisting of one year or more) in the context of an intact
family made for earlier menarche which in turn accelerated sexual debut but this
type of father absence did not predict experience of age of menarche or sexual debut
among those who had not debuted.

The Current Study

The general purpose of the current study was to test the assumption that physiologi-
cal maturation and casual sexual behavior are similarly influenced by early environ-
mental stressors such as father absence. Due to the role of genetics in physiological
maturation, pubertal timing may be less sensitive to (at least) this specific environ-
mental cue than are psychological mechanisms that influence behavior. It is also
important to recognize that early maturation does not necessarily result in early (or
promiscuous) sexual behavior. Therefore, in addition to attempting to replicate find-
ings of the effects of father absence on males’ and females’ casual sexual behavior,
the current study also investigated whether father absence affects pubertal timing in
the same way it affects casual sexual behavior.
Prediction 1a and 1b (replication of Hehman & Salmon, 2019; Salmon et  al.,
2016): There is a main effect of sex on casual sexual behavior such that males
engage in more casual sexual behavior than females. There is a main effect of father
absence on casual sexual behavior, such that males and females who grew up in
stressful childhood environments (indexed by father absence) engage in more casual
sexual behavior.
Prediction 2a and 2b: Developmental research indicates that females experience
menarche about 1–2 years earlier on average (i.e., around age 12; Wu et al., 2002)
than males experience their first nocturnal emission (i.e., age 13–14; Campbell et al.,
2005; Kuhn et al., 1989). Therefore, we predicted a main effect of sex on the age of
reaching pubertal markers such that females would report earlier age of menarche
than males would report of first nocturnal emission. Based on previous findings
indicating that father absence predicted earlier menarche in females and earlier
vocal changes in males (Bogaert, 2005), we also predicted a main effect of father
absence on pubertal timing. Specifically, it was predicted that father absence would

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 171

be associated with earlier pubertal timing for both males and females (indexed by
age at first nocturnal emission and age at menarche, respectively).

Method

Participants

Participants included 135 young adults (89 females, 46 males) between the ages of 18 and
23 (M = 18.50, SD = 0.89). Participants were recruited from psychology courses at a pri-
vate university in the southwestern USA and received course credit for their participation.
Approximately 42% of the participants self-reported their ethnicity as being Caucasian,
33% Hispanic/Latino, 10% Asian, 5% African American, 3% Middle Eastern, 2% South
Asian, and 5% “other.”

Measures

Demographics  Participants were asked to self-report their age, sex, and ethnicity.
Consistent with the method utilized in previous studies, father absence was opera-
tionalized as a continuous variable by asking participants to respond to family com-
position questions (Hehman & Salmon, 2019; Salmon et  al., 2016). Specifically,
participants were asked to indicate who (and at what age) they lived with each of
the following people growing up: biological mother and/or father, stepmother and/or
stepfather, adoptive mother and/or father, and/or extended family (e.g., aunt/uncle,
grandparents).

Pubertal Timing  Participants were asked to self-report their age when they first
experienced a major pubertal event for their biological sex. Males were asked
to self-report the age at which they experienced their first nocturnal emission,
which we believed would be a more salient marker of puberty for males ver-
sus other markers (e.g., vocal changes; Campbell et  al., 2005). Females were
asked to self-report the age at which they experienced menarche. To control
for the effect of body weight and the possibility of genetic confounding when
it comes to pubertal timing in females, females were also asked to self-report
their weight at the time of menarche as well as their mother’s age when she
experienced menarche.

Casual Sexual Behavior  The sociosexual behavior subscale score from the revised
Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) was used
to operationalize casual sexual behavior. This score is computed as the sum of
responses to three questions regarding: (1) how many sexual partners individuals
had within the past 12 months; (2) how many different partners they have had sexual
intercourse without having any interest in a long-term committed relationship with
that person, and (3) how many different partners they have had sexual intercourse

13
172 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

on one and only one occasion. For each question, there were nine possible response
options ranging from “0” to “20 or more.” Higher SOI behavior scores indicate more
casual sexual behavior.

Procedure

Participants were sent a link to complete the survey online. After giving writ-
ten informed consent, participants were directed to the questions. Participants
first responded to the demographic questions, followed by the pubertal tim-
ing questions, and finally the sexual behavior questions. After completion of
the survey, participants were compensated for their time. All measures and
procedures were approved by the University of Redlands Institutional Review
Board (IRB).

Results

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 26. Refer to Table 1 for the means (and standard deviations) for age until
which respondents lived with their biological father, SOI behavior scores, and
age of pubertal timing as a function of sex. Inspection of the independent sample
t tests indicates that there was no significant sex difference in the age until which
respondents lived with their biological father. Males, however, did have signifi-
cantly higher SOI behavior scores (i.e., indicating they engaged in more casual
sex) than females; and females reached their pubertal marker at a significantly
earlier age than did males.

Table 1  Means (and standard deviations) for age until which the respondent lived with their biological
father, SOI behavior score, and age of pubertal timing as a function of respondents’ sex
Measure Males Females t
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) (p value)

Age until which the respondent lived with 13.15 12.96 (7.49) -0.15
their biological ­fathera (7.56) (p = .89)
SOI behavior ­scoreb 7.91 5.75 -2.61c
(5.14) (3.16) (p = .01)
Age of pubertal timing 13.50 12.27 -4.58
(1.53) (1.45) (p < .001)
a
 The range of both males’ and females’ responses on this variable was from 0 to 20 years, indicating that
there was a full range of responses from complete father absence to complete father presence
b
 SOI behavior score was used to operationalize casual sexual behavior (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf,
2008)
c
 The degrees of freedom for this t test were corrected to account for unequal variances based on Levene’s
test for equality of variances

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 173

Effect of Father Absence on Casual Sexual Behavior

A hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to examine the effect of father
absence on casual sexual behavior (i.e., SOI behavior scores). The main effects of sex
of respondent and age until which they lived with their biological father were entered
in step 1; and the interaction between those two variables was entered in step 2. Results
from this analysis are summarized in Table 2.
In step 1, the main effects of sex and age until the respondent lived with their
biological father explained approximately 6% of the variance in casual sexual behav-
ior, F(2,132) = 4.52, p = 0.01. Inspection of the standardized regression coefficients
(βs) indicates that sex of respondent significantly predicted casual sexual behavior;
although the age until which respondents lived with their biological father did not
significant predict unique variance in casual sexual behavior. The main effect of sex
indicates that males engage in significantly more casual sex than females.
In step 2, the two-way interaction effect of sex x age until which respondent
lived with their biological father significantly explained an additional 9% of the
variance in casual sexual behavior, F(1,131) = 13.06, p < 0.001. As can be seen in
Fig. 1, females SOI scores decreased as they lived longer with their biological father
(β = -0.282, p = 0.007); whereas males SOI scores increased as they lived longer with
their biological father (β = 0.315, p = 0.03). Overall, the model explained approxi-
mately 15% of the variance in casual sexual behavior, F(3,131) = 7.64, p < 0.001.

Effect of Father Absence on Pubertal Timing

Preliminary Analyses  Preliminary analyses were conducted to determine whether the

pubertal timing analysis should be conducted separately for males and females (i.e.,
controlling for the effects of body weight and mother’s age at menarche on female
respondents’ pubertal timing) versus a full regression model (as presented above for the
casual sexual behavior analyses). As such, Pearson r correlation tests were conducted
to investigate the relationship between the age at which female respondents experi-
enced menarche and their body weight at time of menarche as well as their mothers’
age at menarche. There was no significant relationship between the respondents’ age
at menarche and their body weight, r(87) = -0.14, p = 0.20, or their mothers’ age at

Table 2  Hierarchical linear regression analysis predicting casual sexual behavior (SOI behavior scores)
as a function of respondent sex and age until which respondent lived with their biological father
Step Variable B SE(B) β ΔR2

Step 1 .06**
Sex of ­respondenta 2.16 .72 .25**
Age lived with bio dad -.01 .05 -.01
Step 2 .09***
Sex X age lived with bio dad .33 .09 .63***
a
 Coded as 0 = female, 1 = male
**p < .01. ***p < .001

13
174 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

Fig. 1  The interaction between sex of respondent and years lived with their biological father on casual
sexual behavior (SOI behavior scores)

menarche, r(87) = 0.001, p = 0.99. Therefore, these control variables were not included
in the final analysis.

Final Regression Analysis A separate hierarchical linear regression analysis was

conducted to examine the effect of father absence on pubertal timing. The variables
were entered into the model following the same procedure described above (i.e., the
main effects were entered in step 1 and the two-way interaction was entered in step
2). Results from this analysis are summarized in Table 3.

In step 1, the main effects of sex and age until the respondent lived with their biological
father explained approximately 20% of the variance in pubertal timing, F(2,132) = 16.21,

Table 3  Hierarchical linear regression analysis predicting pubertal timing (i.e., age at menarche for
females and age of first nocturnal emission for males) as a function of respondent sex and age until which
respondent lived with their biological father
Step Variable B SE(B) β ΔR2

Step 1 .20***
Sex of ­respondenta 1.22 .26 .37***
Age lived with bio dad .05 .02 .25**
Step 2 .03*
Sex X age lived with bio dad .07 .03 .35*
a
 Coded as 0 = female, 1 = male
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 175

p < 0.001. Inspection of the standardized regression coefficients (βs) indicates that sex of
respondent and age until which respondents lived with their biological father were both
significant unique predictors of pubertal timing. The main effect of sex indicates that males
experienced their major pubertal event at an older age than females. The main effect of age
until respondent lived with their biological father indicates that as respondents lived longer
with their biological father, they experienced their major pubertal event at an older age.
In step 2, the two-way interaction effect of sex x age until respondent lived
with their biological father explained an additional 3% of the variance in puber-
tal timing, F(1,131) = 4.44, p = 0.04. As can be seen in Fig.  2, males who lived
with their biological father longer reached their pubertal marker later than males
who lived with their biological father for a shorter time across their development
(β = 0.493, p = 0.001); whereas, females’ pubertal timing was not significantly
influenced as a function of the age until which they lived with their biological
father (β = 0.141, p = 0.19). Overall, the model explained approximately 23% of
the variance in pubertal timing, F(3,131) = 12.57, p < 0.001.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether father absence influ-
enced males’ and females’ behavior and physiology (specifically pubertal timing)
in the same way. Replicating previous findings (Hehman & Salmon, 2019; Salmon
et  al., 2016), we found that males engaged in more casual sexual behavior than
females. Although father absence by itself did not predict casual sexual behavior as

Fig. 2  The interaction between sex of respondent and years lived with their biological father on pubertal
timing (i.e., age of menarche for females and age of first nocturnal emission for males)

13
176 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

found in previous work, the interaction between sex and years lived with biological
father indicated sex-specific developmental effects of father absence on males’ and
females’ casual sexual behavior. Specifically, the longer females lived with their bio-
logical father, the less likely they were to engage in casual sex behavior; whereas, for
males, the longer they lived with their biological father, the more likely they were to
engage in casual sex behavior. The opposite effect of father absence on males’ and
females’ behavior likely cancelled out the main effect. In terms of pubertal timing,
as predicted, males reported experiencing their first nocturnal emission at an older
age than females reported experiencing menarche. In general, the longer an individ-
ual lived with their biological father, the later their first pubertal event. However, the
interaction between sex and father absence suggests the effect of father absence was
largely being driven by males. Relative to males who did not live as long with their
biological father, males who lived with their biological father longer experienced
delayed pubertal events. Females’ pubertal timing, however, was not greatly influ-
enced by father absence. Together these findings suggest that early environmental
cues may not always affect both behavior and physiology in a similar way.
Whereas father absence was found to influence females’ casual sexual behavior, it did
not have much influence at all on their pubertal timing. This finding implies that females’
behavior may be more sensitive to early social environmental cues than their physiologi-
cal maturation. It may also reflect the greater flexibility of behavioral strategies compared
to physiological developmental changes such as menarche. For males, however, father
absence was found to influence both their behavior as well as their pubertal timing. This
suggests that males’ behavior and physiological maturation are both sensitive to early
social environmental cues. Some studies have suggested greater male vulnerability to a
variety of environmental/developmental perturbations (Kruger & Nesse, 2006; Palanza
& Parmigiani, 2017) with neurobehavioral outcomes. It is also important to point out
that the developmental effects of father absence in the current study appear to be sex-
specific. While father absence was associated with lower levels of casual sexual behav-
ior and earlier pubertal timing in males, in females, father absence was associated with
higher levels of casual sexual behavior without much effect at all on pubertal timing.
The lack of an effect of father absence on pubertal timing in females is incon-
sistent with recent meta-analyses indicating father absence accelerates menarche,
at least in WEIRD populations (Guo et al., 2020; Sear et al., 2019; Webster et al.,
2014). This inconsistency may be explained by factors that were not measured
in the current study including the timing of when in development father absence
occurred, the reason for the father absence (e.g., divorce vs. death), as well as an
overall measure of childhood stressors. The assumption that the effect of father
absence is limited to the first few years of life would imply there is a sensitive
period in early development in which early family environmental cues may influ-
ence physiological maturation, beyond which point you would not expect any effect
on pubertal timing (Sear et al., 2019). While there has been some evidence to sup-
port this assumption (i.e., early father absence is associated with earlier menarche,
later father absence not associated with pubertal timing, see Alvergne et al., 2008
and Culpin et al., 2014), the findings about the effect of the timing of father absence
on pubertal timing have been mixed. Some studies have found accelerated puberty
with father absence occurring both in early and late development, and other studies

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 177

have found the effect of father absence on pubertal timing depended on whether
father absence was due to death or divorce (Sear et  al., 2019). Specifically, some
evidence suggests that father absence was only associated with earlier menarche
when father absence was due to death and not divorce (Sheppard et al., 2015). In
their recent meta-analysis, Guo et al. (2020) found the relationship between father
absence and earlier menarche was mediated by childhood stress. The lack of an
effect of father absence on age of menarche in the current study could be due to the
timing of when father absence occurred (i.e., beyond a sensitive period for physi-
ological maturation effects), the reason for the father absence (i.e., if father absence
was more likely due to divorce rather than death), and/or the impact of the father
absence in terms of overall childhood stress experienced by the females. For exam-
ple, in resource-rich environments and/or the case of continued paternal investment
despite father absence from the home, childhood stressors may not have reached the
point necessary to influence physiological maturation. That is, the effect of father
absence may be buffered by continued access to resources and/or social support
typically available in WEIRD populations (Sear et al., 2019). Finally, it should be
noted that the lack of a relationship between father absence and age of menarche in
the current study could reflect a true null relationship, which would be consistent
with studies that have also found no relationship between father absence and puber-
tal timing in females (Sohn, 2017).
Finally, the current study contributes to the literature by investigating the effect
of father absence on males’ behavior and physiological maturation in addition to
the effects on females. Consistent with evidence that biological father presence is
associated with a slower life history strategy (Hehman & Salmon, 2019), males who
lived longer with their biological fathers experienced delayed puberty. Later physi-
cal development would potentially allow for greater investment (i.e., longer period
of being invested in) and accrual of social capital before reaching the age of repro-
ductive maturation. In a stable and safe environment, greater investment and social
capital could result in higher mate value for these males (Geary, 2000; Hill & Buss,
2008), making them more attractive as a mate (relative to males who experienced
father absence and would have received less investment and had less time for accrual
of social capital before reaching reproductive maturity). As a result of their higher
mate value, males who grew up with their biological fathers present would tend to
have more sexual opportunities (Clark, 2006; Perusse, 1993; Rhodes et al., 2005).
Since behavior is dependent on the opportunities for which it can occur, the differ-
ence in sexual opportunities between males from father present vs. absent homes
could explain our finding that males who lived longer with their biological father
had more casual sex partners than males who experienced greater father absence,
despite those males reaching reproductive maturity at an earlier age.

Limitations and Future Directions

A potential limitation of the current study is the relatively small number of male
participants. While the overall sample size was adequate for examining main effects
and simple two-way interactions, the sample size was not adequate for investigation

13
178 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

of the effect of the specific timing of father absence on sexual maturation and behav-
ior. Previous findings of sex-specific developmental effects of father absence on both
pubertal timing (in females only; Sear et al., 2019) and casual sexual behavior (in
males and females; Hehman & Salmon, 2019) suggest that the effects depend on
when in development father absence occurs. Although the current study included
both males and females across the full range of father absence, from complete
absence to complete presence, the subsample of individuals who experienced (at
least some) father absence during their development was not sufficient to test for
developmental timing effects. Out of 64 participants who reported (at least some)
father absence, 34 reported father absence occurring by age 7, only 8 reported father
absence occurring between the ages of 7 and 11, and 20 reported father absence
occurring between the ages of 11 and 16. Future research should investigate tim-
ing of father absence along with timing of pubertal events, controlling for when in
development father left relative to their pubertal age (i.e., before or after puberty).
In order to influence pubertal timing, events would need to occur before puberty.
Given that limitation, the window of sensitivity for behavioral regulation may be
wider than the window of sensitivity for physiological maturation. Future research
is needed to address questions such as: How much earlier (before puberty) does an
event, such as father absence, need to occur in order to influence pubertal timing? Is
it the same for males and females? Does the reason why father left (at different times
across development) influence the effects on puberty and/or behavior?
As with most other studies on this topic, another limitation is the retrospective
nature of our measures. This is likely more problematic for the validity of males’
pubertal timing given the lack of a clear pubertal marker for males equivalent to
menarche in females. Furthermore, the lack of a consistently agreed upon “best”
marker of puberty in males would seem to compound this problem. In a system-
atic review of studies investigating the effect of early life environment on males’
reproductive timing and sexual behavior, Xu et al. (2018) found consistent evidence
(across 39 countries) of father absence associated with increased sexual behavior
including earlier first sex, more sexual partners, earlier first child, and earlier mar-
riage. The effect of father absence (as well as family SES, another marker of poten-
tial early environmental stressors on development) on pubertal timing, however,
was found to be inconsistent (Xu et al., 2018). The inconsistent findings in terms of
males’ pubertal timing could be an artifact of how reproductive maturity was opera-
tionalized. As pointed out by Xu et al. (2018), the measurement of pubertal timing
in males has ranged from the use of a single marker (e.g., age of spermarche, vocal
changes, pubic hair growth, or nocturnal emission) to a combination of two or more
pubertal markers. There are many reasons why these markers could vary in terms
of salience for males with some markers being more memorable than others. Indi-
vidual differences in the context of how or when males experienced (or first noticed)
these pubertal markers could also accentuate memory (or not) of these markers. For
example, a male who first experienced voice cracking in a public, social setting of
some sort may have a more accurate memory for age at which that occurred rela-
tive to a male who did not have such a public, potentially embarrassing, experience
of first vocal changes. It may also be the case that some of the pubertal markers
are accelerated more than others. Future research should investigate the validity of

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 179

different markers of male puberty. Investigation of multiple markers for each indi-
vidual will allow for a closer examination of how father absence accelerates puberty
(or not). For example, are all the aforementioned male pubertal markers influenced
in the same way (i.e,. they all speed up or slow down to the same extent)? Do early
pubertal changes occur even earlier? Is puberty shortened (i.e., completes at faster
pace with later pubertal changes occurring sooner after the early changes?
It should be noted that the limitation of using self-report and retrospective mem-
ory also applies to the females. Self-report for age of menarche is likely valid as one’s
own age of menarche tends to be memorable. However, to control for genetic effects,
we also relied on females’ knowledge of their mother’s age of menarche. Although
there are clearly genetic effects on pubertal timing in females, the current study found
no indication of a relationship between mothers’ and daughters’ age of menarche.
Future studies should collect maternal puberty timing data directly from the mothers
themselves rather than relying on the participants’ knowledge of that information.
Finally, the current study focused on the effects of father absence in young adult
college students in a WEIRD population. However, one issue with research in this
area is the limited number of studies that address these effects in males at all (also
pointed out in Sear et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2018). More research focused on the effects
of father absence on physiological maturation and sexual behavior in males and
females in both WEIRD and non-WEIRD populations is still needed to resolve dis-
crepancies in the literature. As noted earlier, not all studies have found acceleration
effects of father absence and those effects have been found more in WEIRD popu-
lations than in non-WEIRD populations (Sear et  al., 2019). More studies extend-
ing this work to a wider range of non-WEIRD populations is still needed to fully
understand the various environmental influences on sexual strategies and pubertal
timing. As pointed out by Sear (2020), such cross-cultural investigations are neces-
sary to understand how different environmental factors (e.g., resource availability,
mortality rates, cooperative childrearing, unpredictability, population density, and
other cultural factors) influence individuals’ life histories. It is equally important to
note, however, that the need for research in non-WEIRD populations does not nul-
lify the contribution of findings from WEIRD populations to our understanding of
environmental influences on life history strategy. In fact, when investigating poten-
tially universal mechanisms, some researchers have proposed that it is inaccurate to
dichotomize populations as either WEIRD or non-WEIRD as doing so ignores the
tremendous amount of diversity found within both WEIRD and non-WEIRD popu-
lations (Garfield et  al., 2020). A range of contexts and populations are important
when investigating how different environmental cues lead to differences in behavior,
which ultimately lead to differences in life history outcomes. Measurement of both
behavior and outcomes also seems to be equally important. Whereas the behavior
may provide insight into an individual’s approach to the life history trade-offs in
their specific environmental context, the outcome measures may provide insight into
the result of that trade-off. A comprehensive model focusing on the different aspects
of life history (i.e., the genetic basis of the universal mechanism, the environmental
context, behaviors, and the outcomes) – rather just one of those aspects, which is
often the case with researchers from different fields and/or perspectives focusing on
different aspects – is needed.

13
180 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

Conclusions

Findings from the current study suggest that the effects of father absence on puber-
tal timing and casual sexual behavior are not specific to females. Furthermore,
findings from the current study suggest the physiological and behavioral effects
of father absence are sex-specific. For males, father absence was associated with
earlier puberty and less casual sexual behavior. However, females’ pubertal timing
was not very affected at all by father absence (i.e., females’ pubertal timing shifted
only slightly earlier versus a much larger shift in age observed for males). Also, for
females, father absence was associated with more casual sex partners. This suggests
that females’ behavior may be more sensitive to early environmental cues of stabil-
ity than their physiology, whereas males’ behavior and physiology both seem to be
affected by early environment. Finally, father absence was found to have a larger
effect on pubertal timing (i.e., explaining more variance, largely driven by the
males) than on casual sexual behavior. Together these findings suggest that physi-
ological maturation and sexual behavior are likely not influenced in the same way by
early environmental stressors such as father absence.

Acknowledgments  We would like to thank acting Editor, Coren Apicella, and two anonymous reviewers
for their feedback which improved this manuscript.
All measures and procedures were approved by the University of Redlands Institutional Review Board
(IRB; FWA# 00023072).

Declarations 

Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Alvergne, A., Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2008). Developmental plasticity of human reproductive devel-
opment: Effects of early family environment in modern-day France. Physiology & Behavior, 95(5),
625–632.
Anderson, K. G. (2015). Father absence, childhood stress, and reproductive maturation in South Africa.
Human Nature, 26(4), 401–425.
Barbaro, N., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Genetic confounding of the
relationship between father absence and age at menarche. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(3),
357–365.
Belsky, J. (2012). The development of human reproductive strategies: Progress and prospects. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 310–316.
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.
Bogaert, A. F. (2005). Age at puberty and father absence in a national probability sample. Journal of
Adolescence, 28(4), 541–546.
Bogaert, A. F. (2008). Menarche and father absence in a national probability sample. Journal of
Biosocial Science, 40(4), 623–636.
Campbell, B. C., Prossinger, H., & Mbzivo, M. (2005). Timing of pubertal maturation and the onset
of sexual behavior among Zimbabwe school boys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(5), 505–516.
Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality
and Individual Differences, 41(7), 1321–1327.

13
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182 181

Culpin, I., Heron, J., Araya, R., Melotti, R., Lewis, G., & Joinson, C. (2014). Father absence and tim-
ing of menarche in adolescent girls from a UK cohort: the mediating role of maternal depression
and major financial problems. Journal of Adolescence, 37(3), 291–301.
DelPriore, D. J., Schlomer, G. L., & Ellis, B. J. (2017). Impact of fathers on parental monitoring of
daughters and their affiliation with sexually promiscuous peers: A genetically and environmen-
tally controlled sibling study. Developmental Psychology, 53(7), 1330.
Draper, P., & Harpending, H. (1982). Father absence and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary per-
spective. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38(3), 255–273.
Ellis, B. J., & Essex, M. J. (2007). Family environments, adrenarche, and sexual maturation: A longi-
tudinal test of a life history model. Child Development, 78(6), 1799–1817.
Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., Pettit, G. S., & Wood-
ward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and
teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74(3), 801–821.
Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A. J., Gray, P., Griskevicius, V., ... & Wil-
son, D. S. (2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: implications for science,
policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 598
Garfield, Z. H., Syme, K. L., & Hagen, E. H. (2020). Universal and variable leadership dimensions
across human societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 397–414.
Gaydosh, L., Belsky, D. W., Domingue, B. W., Boardman, J. D., & Harris, K. M. (2017). Father
absence and accelerated reproductive development. BioRxiv, 123711
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 126(1), 55.
Guo, S., Lu, H. J., Zhu, N., & Chang, L. (2020). Meta-analysis of direct and indirect effects of father
absence on menarcheal timing. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1641.
Hehman, J. A., & Salmon, C. A. (2019). Sex-specific developmental effects of father absence on cas-
ual sexual behavior and life history strategy. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(1), 121–130.
Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual
and romantic desirability: Opposite effects for men and women. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 34(5), 635–647.
James, J., Ellis, B. J., Schlomer, G. L., & Garber, J. (2012). Sex-specific pathways to early puberty,
sexual debut, and sexual risk taking: Tests of an integrated evolutionary–developmental model.
Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 687–702.
Kim, D., & Sohn, K. (2018). Having more siblings delays menarche in Indonesia. American Journal
of Human Biology, 30(6), e23189.
Kruger, D. J., & Nesse, R. M. (2006). An evolutionary life-history framework for understanding sex
differences in human mortality rates. Human Nature, 17(1), 74–97.
Kuhn, H. E., Frontera, M. A., Demers, L. M., Bartholomew, M. J., & Lloyd, T. A. (1989). The onset
of sperm production in pubertal boys: Relationship to gonadotropin excretion. American Journal
of Diseases of Children, 143(2), 190–193.
Kyweluk, M. A., Georgiev, A. V., Borja, J. B., Gettler, L. T., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2018). Menarcheal
timing is accelerated by favorable nutrition but unrelated to developmental cues of mortality or
familial instability in Cebu Philippines. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(1), 76–81.
Mendle, J., Harden, K. P., Turkheimer, E., Van HulleD’onofrio, C. A. B. M., Brooks-Gunn, J., &
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Associations between father absence and age of first sexual intercourse.
Child Development, 80(5), 1463–1480.
Mustanski, B. S., Viken, R. J., Kaprio, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Rose, R. J. (2004). Genetic and environ-
mental influences on pubertal development: longitudinal data from Finnish twins at ages 11 and
14. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1188–1198.
Palanza, P., & Parmigiani, S. (2017). How does sex matter? Behavior, stress and animal models of
neurobehavioral disorders. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 76, 134–143.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated
look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113.
Perusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship
at the proximate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267–322.
Quinlan, R. J. (2003). Father absence, parental care, and female reproductive development. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 24(6), 376–390.

13
182 Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2021) 7:166–182

Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attrac-
tiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201.
Richardson, G. B., La Guardia, A. C., & Klay, P. M. (2018). Determining the roles of father absence
and age at menarche in female psychosocial acceleration. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(4),
437–446.
Salmon, C. A. (2017). Is Female Competition at the Heart of Reproductive Suppression and Eating
Disorders? In M. L. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition. (pp. 435–
451). Oxford University Press.
Salmon, C., Townsend, J. M., & Hehman, J. (2016). Casual sex and college students: Sex differences
and the impact of father absence. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(4), 254–261.
Schlomer, G. L., & Cho, H. J. (2017). Genetic and environmental contributions to age at menarche:
Interactive effects of father absence and LIN28B. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6),
761–769.
Sear, R. (2020). Do human ‘life history strategies’ exist? Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(6),
513–526.
Sear, R., Sheppard, P., & Coall, D. A. (2019). Cross-cultural evidence does not support universal
acceleration of puberty in father-absent households. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 374(1770), 20180124.
Shenk, M. K., & Scelza, B. A. (2012). Paternal investment and status-related child outcomes: Timing
of father’s death affects offspring success. Journal of Biosocial Science, 44(5), 549–569.
Sheppard, P., & Sear, R. (2011). Father absence predicts age at sexual maturity and reproductive tim-
ing in British men. Biology Letters, 8(2), 237–240.
Sheppard, P., Snopkowski, K., & Sear, R. (2014). Father absence and reproduction-related outcomes
in Malaysia, a transitional fertility population. Human Nature, 25(2), 213–234.
Sheppard, P., Garcia, J. R., & Sear, R. (2015). Childhood family disruption and adult height: Is there a
mediating role of puberty? Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2015(1), 332–342.
Sitokozile, C., & Herbert, Z. (2019). The impact of father absence on the sexual behaviour of female
students at a selected college in Masvingo, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Education and
Psychology in the Community, 9(1/2), 41–55.
Sohn, K. (2017). The null relation between father absence and earlier menarche. Human Nature,
28(4), 407–422.
Sørensen, S., Brix, N., Ernst, A., Lauridsen, L. L. B., & Ramlau-Hansen, C. H. (2018). Maternal
age at menarche and pubertal development in sons and daughters: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
Human Reproduction, 33(11), 2043–2050.
Tither, J. M., & Ellis, B. J. (2008). Impact of fathers on daughters’ age at menarche: A genetically and
environmentally controlled sibling study. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1409.
Webster, G. D., Graber, J. A., Gesselman, A. N., Crosier, B. S., & Schember, T. O. (2014). A life his-
tory theory of father absence and menarche: a meta-analysis. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(2),
147470491401200200.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1997). Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive
timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. British Medical Journal, 314(7089), 1266–1274.
Wu, T., Mendola, P., & Buck, G. M. (2002). Ethnic differences in the presence of secondary sex char-
acteristics and menarche among US girls: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, 1988–1994. Pediatrics, 110(4), 752–757.
Xu, Y., Norton, S., & Rahman, Q. (2018). Early life conditions, reproductive and sexuality-related life
history outcomes among human males: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 39(1), 40–51.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13