Viewing attractive or unattractive same-sex individuals changes self-rated attractiveness and face preferences in women

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 72, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 981-987

  Little, Anthony C ^a   Mannion, Helena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEMALE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC STRUCTURE; IMAGE; MATE CHOICE; SEX RATIO; WOMENS STATUS;

EID: 33750312866     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.01.026     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bakker T.C.M., Künzler R., and Mazzi D. Condition-related mate-choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401 (1999) 234
2. Ben Hamida S., Mineka S., and Bailey J.M. Sex differences in perceived controllability of mate value: an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1998) 953-966
3. Benson P.J., and Perrett D.I. Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception 22 (1993) 257-262
4. Brase G.L., and Guy E.C. The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 471-484
5. Brown J.D., Novick N.J., Lord K.A., and Richards J.M. When Gulliver travels: social-context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (1992) 717-727
6. Burley N. Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. American Naturalist 127 (1986) 415-445
7. Cash T.F., Cash D.W., and Butters J.W. Mirror, mirror, on the wall. contrast effects and self-evaluations of physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9 (1983) 351-358
8. Fisher R.A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), Clarendon Press, Oxford
9. Gangestad S.W., and Simpson J.A. The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 23 (2000) 573-644
10. Geiselman R.E., Haight N.A., and Kimata L.G. Context effects on the perceived physical attractiveness of faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20 (1984) 409-424
11. Henderson J.J.A., and Anglin J.M. Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior 24 (2003) 351-356
12. Jones B.C., Perrett D.I., Little A.C., Boothroyd L., Cornwell R.E., Feinberg D.R., Tiddeman B.P., Whiten S., Pitman R.M., Hillier S.G., Burt D.M., Stirrat M.R., Smith M.J.L., and Moore F.R. Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 272 (2005) 347-354
13. Kenrick D.T., and Guttierres S.E. Contrast effect and judgements of physical attractiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38 (1980) 131-140
14. Kenrick D.T., Gutierres S.E., and Goldberg L.L. Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25 (1989) 159-167
15. Kenrick D.T., Neuberg S.L., Zierk K.L., and Krones J.M. Evolution and social cognition: contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 (1994) 210-217
16. Leary M.R., and Baumeister R.F. The nature and function of self-esteem: sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental social Psychology 32 (2000) 1-62
17. Little A.C., and Hancock P.J. The role of masculinity and distinctiveness on the perception of attractiveness in human male faces. British Journal of Psychology 93 (2002) 451-464
18. Little A.C., Burt D.M., Penton-Voak I.S., and Perrett D.I. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 268 (2001) 39-44
19. Little A.C., and Perrett D.I. Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder. The Psychologist 15 (2002) 28-32
20. Little A.C., Jones B.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Burt D.M., and Perrett D.I. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 269 (2002) 1095-1100
21. Little A.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Burt D.M., and Perrett D.I. Individual differences in the perception of attractiveness: how cyclic hormonal changes and self-perceived attractiveness influence female preferences for male faces. In: Rhodes G., and Zebrowitz L. (Eds). Advances in Social Cognition: Facial Attractiveness Vol. 1 (2002), Ablex, Westport, Connecticut 59-90
22. Little A.C., Perrett D.I., Penton-Voak I.S., and Burt D.M. Evolution and individual differences in the perception of attractiveness. In: Kenichi A., and Akazawa T. (Eds). Human Mate Choice and Prehistoric Marital Networks (2002), International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto 101-115
23. Lopez S. Parasitized female guppies do not prefer showy males. Animal Behaviour 57 (1999) 1129-1134
24. Mazzi D., Künzler R., and Bakker T.C.M. Female preference for symmetry in computer-animated three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54 (2003) 156-161
25. Pawlowski B., and Dunbar R.I.M. Impact of market value on human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 266 (1999) 281-285
26. Penton-Voak I.S., Perrett D.I., Castles D.L., Kobayashi T., Burt D.M., Murray L.K., and Minamisawa R. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399 (1999) 741-742
27. Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., and Perrett D.I. Measures of female condition influence preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male Homo sapiens. Journal of Comparative Psychology 117 (2003) 264-271
28. Perrett D.I., Lee K.J., Penton-Voak I.S., Rowland D.R., Yoshikawa S., Burt D.M., Henzi S.P., Castles D.L., and Akamatsu S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394 (1998) 884-887
29. Rhodes G., Zebrowitz L.A., Clark A., Kalick S.M., Hightower A., and McKay R. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health?. Evolution and Human Behaviour 22 (2001) 31-46
30. Shackelford T.K., and Larsen R.J. Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution and Human Behaviour 21 (1999) 71-76
31. Thornhill R., and Gangestad S.W. Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3 (1999) 452-460
32. Thornton B., and Moore S. Physical attractiveness contrast effect: implications for self-esteem and evaluations of the social self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19 (1993) 474-480
33. Tiddeman B.P., Burt D.M., and Perrett D.I. Prototyping and transforming facial texture for perception research. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21 (2001) 42-50
34. Wedell D.H., Parducci A., and Geiselman R.E. A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23 (1987) 230-249
35. Wilson M., and Daly M. Do pretty women inspire men to discount the future?. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 271 (2004) S177-S179