Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 61, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 967-973

  Little, Anthony C ^a,b   Cohen, Danielle L ^c   Jones, Benedict C ^d   Belsky, Jay ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^c LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Ecology; Harsh safe; Masculinity femininity; Strategy

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY; HOMINID; MATE ATTRACTION; MATE CHOICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEX ALLOCATION; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; TRADE-OFF;

HOMO SAPIENS;

EID: 33847737814     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-006-0325-7     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson JL, Crawford CB, Nadeau J, Lindberg T (1992) Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of ideals of female body shape. Ethol Sociobiol 13:197-227
2. Belsky J, Steinberg L, Draper P (1991) Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy-an evolutionary- theory of socialization. Child Dev 62:647-670
3. Benson PJ, Perrett DI (1993) Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception 22:257-262
4. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415-445
5. Buss DM, Barnes M (1986) Preferences in human mate selection. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:559-570
6. Campbell KL, Wood JW (1994) Human reproductive ecology: interactions of environment, fertility, and behaviour. Ann NY Acad Sci 709:227-230
7. Chisholm JS (1996) The evolutionary ecology of attachment organization. Hum Nat 7:1-37
8. Cohen DL (2004) Attachment, ecology, and mating strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, University of London, London
9. Cunningham MR (1986) Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:925-935
10. Ellison PT (2001) Reproductive ecology and human evolution. Aldine de Gruyter, New York
11. Gangestad SW, Haselton MG, Buss DM (2006) Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychol Inq 17:75-95
12. Geary DC, Vigil J, Byrd-Craven J (2004) Evolution of human mate choice. J Sex Res 41:27-42
13. Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 108:233-242
14. Hill K, Hurtado AM (1996) Ache life history: the ecology and demography of a foraging people. Aldine de Gruyter, New York Jones D, Hill K (1993) Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat 4:271-296
15. Little AC, Hancock PJ (2002) The role of masculinity and distinctiveness on the perception of attractiveness in human male faces. Br J Psychol 93:451-464
16. Little AC, Perrett DI (2002) Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder. Psychologist 15:28-32
17. Little AC, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2001) Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:39-44
18. Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2002a) Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1095-1100
19. Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2002b) Individual differences in the perception of attractiveness: how cyclic hormonal changes and self-perceived attractiveness influence female preferences for male faces. In: Rhodes G, Zebrowitz L (eds) Advances in social cognition: facial attractiveness, vol 1. Ablex, Westport, CT, pp 59-90
20. Little AC, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM (2002c) Evolution and individual differences in the perception of attractiveness. In: Kenichi A, Akazawa T (eds) Human mate choice and prehistoric marital networks. International research center for Japanese studies, Kyoto, Japan, pp 101-115
21. Mace R (2000) Evolutionary ecology of human life history. Anim Behav 59:1-10
22. Møller AP, Thornhill R (1998) Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Anim Behav 55:1507-1515
23. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, Minamisawa R (1999) Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399:741-742
24. Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Jones BC, Burt DM, Tiddeman BP, Perrett DI (2003) Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 117:264-271
25. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak IS, Rowland DR, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S (1998) Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394:884-887
26. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 3:452-460
27. Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2001) Prototyping and transforming facial texture for perception research. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 21:42-50
28. Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHCdependent mate preferences in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:245-249
29. Wilson M, Daly M (1997) Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. Br Med J 314:1271-1274