Interactions between masculinity-femininity and apparent health in face preferences

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 441-445

  Smith, Finlay G ^a   Jones, Benedict C ^a   Debruine, Lisa M ^a   Little, Anthony C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Apparent health; Faces; Integration; Masculinity; Mate choice; Signal interactions

Indexed keywords

COMPLEXITY; DIVERGENCE; HEALTH STATUS; HOMINID; MATE CHOICE; OPTIMIZATION; PERCEPTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

EID: 64949122491     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn141     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adams RB, Kleck RE. 2003. Perceived gaze direction and the processing of facial displays of emotion. Psychol Sci. 141:644-647.
2. Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, Cornwell RE, Little AC, Tiddeman BP, Perrett DI. 2005. Facial masculinity is related to perceived age but not perceived health. Evol Hum Behav. 26:417-431.
3. Buckingham G, DeBruine LM, Little AC, Welling LLM, Conway CA, Tiddeman BP, Jones BC. 2006. Visual adaptation to masculine and feminine faces influences generalized preferences and perceptions of trustworthiness. Evol Hum Behav. 27:381-389.
4. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev. 78:575-595.
5. Conway CA, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Little AC. 2008. Evidence for adaptive design in human gaze preference. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 275:63-69.
6. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Cooper PA, Penke L, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP. 2006. Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 273:1355-1360.
7. Folstad I, Karter AJ. 1992. Parasites, bright males and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat. 139:603-622.
8. Getty T. 2002. Signaling health versus parasites. Am Nat. 159:363-371.
9. Johnston VS, Hagel R, Franklin M, Fink B, Grammer K. 2001. Male facial attractiveness: evidence for a hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evol Hum Behav. 22:251-267.
10. Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Little AC, Conway CA, Feinberg DR. 2006. Integrating gaze direction and expression in preferences for attractive faces. Psychol Sci. 17:588-591.
11. Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Little AC, Conway CA, Welling LLM, Smith FG. 2007. Sensation seeking and men's face preferences. Evol Hum Behav. 28:439-446.
12. Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, DeBruine LM, Feinberg DR, Law Smith MJ, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Perrett DI. 2005. Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone level is high. Horm Behav. 48:283-290.
13. Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, Feinberg DR, Cornwell RE, DeBruine LM, Roberts SC, Penton-Voak IS, Law Smith MJ, Moore FR, et al. 2005. Women's physical and psychological condition independently predict their preference for apparent health in faces. Evol Hum Behav. 26:451-457.
14. Jones BC, Little AC, Burt DM, Perrett DI. 2004. When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception. 33:569-576.
15. Jones BC, Perrett DI, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, Cornwell RE, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP, Whiten S, Pitman RM, Hillier SG, et al. 2005. Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 272:347-354.
16. Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Feinberg DR, Boothroyd LG, Durrani SJ, Stirrat MR, White SR, et al. 2006. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 10:1-6.
17. Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. 2002. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:1095-1103.
18. Miller GF, Todd PM. 1998. Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends Cogn Sci. 2:190-198.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. 1994. Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature. 368:239-242.
22. Rhodes G. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 57:199-226.
23. Rhodes G, Chan J, Zebrowitz LA, Simmons LW. 2003. Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:S93-S95.
24. Rhodes G, Zebrowitz L, Clark A, Kalick SM, Hightower A, McKay R. 2001. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evol Hum Behav. 22:31-46.
25. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW 1999. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci. 3:452-460.
26. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. 2006. Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evol Hum Behav. 27:131-144.
27. Tiddeman BP, Perrett DI, Burt DM. 2001. Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 21:42-50.
28. Welling LLM, Conway CA, DeBruine LM, Jones BC. 2007. Perceived vulnerability to disease predicts variation in preferences for apparent health in faces. J Evol Psychol. 5:131-139.
29. Welling LLM, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. 2008. Sex drive is positively associated with women's preferences for sexual dimorphism in men's and women's faces. Pers Individ Dif. 44:161-170.
30. Welling LLM, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Conway CA, Law Smith MJ, Little AC, Feinberg DR, Sharp M, Al-Dujaili EAS. 2007. Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with increased attraction to masculine faces. Horm Behav. 52:156-161.
31. Wilson M, Daly M. 2004. Do pretty women inspire men to discount the future? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271:S177-S179.