Cues to the sex ratio of the local population influence women's preferences for facial symmetry

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 545-553

  Watkins, Christopher D ^a   Jones, Benedict C ^a   Little, Anthony C ^b   DeBruine, Lisa M ^a   Feinberg, David R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attraction; Dominance; Fluctuating asymmetry; Mate preference; Sex ratio; Within sex competition

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; DOMINANCE; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FLUCTUATING ASYMMETRY; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; SEX RATIO; SYMMETRY;

EID: 84856103349     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2. Balshine-Earn S. Reproductive rates, operational sex ratios and mate choice in St Peter's fish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1996, 39:107-116.
3. Barber N. Marriage markets and mating aggression help explain societal differences in violent crime. Aggression and Violent Behavior 2011, 16:420-427.
4. Berglund A. The operational sex ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish. Behavioral Ecology 1994, 5:254-258.
5. Buss D.M., Dedden L.A. Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1990, 7:395-422.
6. Campbell A. Afew good men: evolutionary psychology and female adolescent aggression. Ethology and Sociobiology 1995, 16:99-123.
7. Clark L., Grant J.W.A. Intrasexual competition and courtship in female and male Japanese medaka, Oryzias latipes: effects of operational sex ratio and density. Animal Behaviour 2010, 80:707-712.
8. Clutton-Brock T.H., Rose K.E., Guinness F.E. Density related changes in sexual selection in red deer. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1997, 264:1509-1516.
9. Coltman D.W., Smith J.A., Bancroft D.R., Pilkington J., MacColl A.D.C., Clutton-Brock T.H., Pemberton J.M. Density-dependent variation in lifetime breeding success and natural sexual selection in soay rams. American Naturalist 1999, 154:730-746.
10. Colwell M.A., Oring L.W. Sex ratios and intrasexual competition for mates in a sex-role reversed shorebird, Wilson's phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1988, 22:165-173.
11. Conway C.A., Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C. Evidence for adaptive design in human gaze preference. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:63-69.
12. DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Crawford J.R., Welling L.L.M., Little A.C. The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2010, 277:2405-2410.
13. DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Crawford J.R., Welling L.L.M. Further evidence for regional variation in women's masculinity preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2011, 278:813-814.
14. Dick J.T.A., Elwood R.W. Effects of natural variation in sex ratio and habitat structure on mate-guarding decisions in amphipods (Crustacea). Behaviour 1996, 133:985-996.
15. Emlen S.T., Oring L.W. Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 1977, 197:215-223.
16. Fisher M., Cox A. The influence of female attractiveness on competitor derogation. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 2009, 7:141-155.
17. Forsgren E., Amundsen T., Borg A.A., Bjelvenmark J. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 2004, 429:551-554.
18. Gangestad S.W., Buss D.M. Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology 1993, 14:89-96.
19. Gangestad S.W., Simpson J.A. The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral Brain Sciences 2000, 23:675-687.
20. Gangestad S.W., Thornhill R. Facial masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior 2003, 24:231-241.
21. Grammer K., Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 1994, 108:233-242.
22. Guttentag M., Secord P.F. Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question 1983, Sage, Beverly Hills.
23. Hohmann G., Fruth B. Intra- and inter-sexual aggression by bonobos in the context of mating. Behaviour 2003, 140:1389-1413.
24. Hudson V.M., Den Boer A. Asurplus of men, a deficit of peace: security and sex ratio in Asia's largest states. International Security 2002, 26:5-38.
25. Hudson V.M., Den Boer A. Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
26. Hume D.K., Montgomerie R. Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of 'quality' in women and men. Evolution and Human Behavior 2001, 22:93-112.
27. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews 1997, 72:283-327.
28. Jirotkul M. Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Animal Behaviour 1999, 58:287-294.
29. Jones B.C., Little A.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Tiddeman B.P., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I. Facial symmetry and judgments of apparent health: support for a 'good genes' explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior 2001, 22:417-429.
30. Jones B.C., Little A.C., Feinberg D.R., Penton-Voak I.S., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I. The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 2004, 25:24-30.
31. 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., et al. Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2005, 272:347-354.
32. Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C., Burriss R.P., Feinberg D.R. Social transmission of face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2007, 274:899-903.
33. Kvarnemo C., Ahnesjo I. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1996, 11:404-408.
34. Kvarnemo C., Simmons L.W. Variance in female quality, OSR and male mate choice in a bushcricket. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1999, 45:245-252.
35. Lawrence W.S. Male choice and competition in Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: effects of local sex ratio variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1986, 18:289-296.
36. Lie H.C., Rhodes G., Simmons L.W. Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Evolution 2008, 62:2473-2486.
37. Little A.C., Jones B.C. Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:1759-1763.
38. Little A.C., Jones B.C. Attraction independent of detection suggests special mechanisms for symmetry preferences in human face perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2006, 273:3093-3099.
39. Little A.C., Burt D.M., Penton-Voak I.S., Perrett D.I. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2001, 268:39-44.
40. Little A.C., Cohen D.L., Jones B.C., Belsky J. Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2007, 61:967-973.
41. Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I. Preferences for symmetry in faces change across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology 2007, 76:209-216.
42. Little A.C., Jones B.C., Waitt C., Tiddeman B.P., Feinberg D.R., Perrett D.I., Apicella C.A., Marlowe F.W. Symmetry is related to sexual dimorphism in faces: data across culture and species. PLoS One 2008, 3:2106.
43. Little A.C., DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C. Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2011, 278:2032-2039.
44. Maner J.K., Kenrick D.T., Becker D.V., Delton A.W., Hofer B., Wilbur C.J., Neuberg S.L. Sexually selective cognition: beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003, 85:1107-1120.
45. Mathews L.M. Tests of the mate-guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: does population density, sex ratio, or female synchrony affect behavior of male snapping shrimp (Alpheus angulatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2002, 51:426-432.
46. Michener G.R., Locklear L. Differential costs of reproductive effort for male and female Richardson's ground squirrels. Ecology 1990, 71:855-868.
47. Noë R., Hammerstein P. Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1994, 35:1-11.
48. Oinonen K.A., Mazmanian D. Facial symmetry detection ability changes across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology 2007, 75:136-145.
49. Owens I.P.F., Thompson D.B.A. Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1994, 258:93-99.
50. Özener B. Fluctuating and directional asymmetry in young human males: effect of heavy working condition and socioeconomic status. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2010, 143:112-120.
51. Özener B., Fink B. Facial symmetry in young girls and boys from a slum and a control area of Ankara, Turkey. Evolution and Human Behavior 2010, 31:436-441.
52. Pawłowski B., Dunbar R.I.M., Lipowicz A. Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature 2000, 403:156.
53. Pedersen F.A. Secular trends in human sex ratios: their influence on individual and family behavior. Human Nature 1991, 2:271-291.
54. Penton-Voak I.S., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Baker S., Tiddeman B., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions, and male facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2001, 268:1617-1623.
55. Penton-Voak I.S., Jacobson A., Trivers R. Populational differences in attractiveness judgments of male and female faces: comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Human Behavior 2004, 25:355-370.
56. Perrett D.I., Burt D.M., Penton-Voak I.S., Lee K.J., Rowland D.A., Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 1999, 20:295-307.
57. Pollet T.V., Nettle D. Driving a hard bargain: sex ratio and male marriage success in a historical US population. Biology Letters 2008, 4:31-33.
58. Puts D.A., Barndt J.L., Welling L.L.M., Dawood K., Burriss R.P. Intrasexual competition among women: vocal femininity affects perceptions of attractiveness and flirtatiousness. Personality and Individual Differences 2011, 50:111-115.
59. Quist, M., Watkins, C. D., Smith, F. G., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M. & Jones, B. C. 2011. Sociosexuality predicts women's preferences for symmetry in men's faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, published online 1 September 2011, doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9848-8.
60. Sacco D.F., Hugenberg K., Sefcek J.A. Sociosexuality and face perception: unrestricted sexual orientation facilitates sensitivity to female facial cues. Personality and Individual Differences 2009, 47:777-782.
61. Schuster I. Women's aggression: an African case study. Aggressive Behavior 1983, 9:319-331.
62. Schuster I. Female aggression and resource scarcity: a cross-cultural perspective. The Aggressive Female 1985, 185-208. CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague. M. Haug, D. Benton, P. Brain, B. Oliver, J. Mos (Eds.).
63. Seielstad M.T., Minch E., Cavalli-Sforza L.L. Genetic evidence for a higher female migration rate in humans. Nature Genetics 1998, 20:278-280.
64. Souroukis K., Murray A.M. Female mating behavior in the field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) at different operational sex ratios. Journal of Insect Behavior 1994, 8:269-279.
65. Thornhill R., Gangestad S.W. Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior 2006, 27:131-144.
66. Verrell P.A. The influence of ambient sex ratio and intramale competition on the sexual behaviour of the redspotted newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Amphibia: Urodela: Salamandridae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1983, 13:307-313.
67. Wang X., Li J., Xia D., Chen R., Zhu Y., Zhang M., Wang S. Comparisons on reproductive and aggressive behaviors in male Tibetan macaques (Macaca thibetana) of two different operational sex ratio troops at Huangshan, China. Zoological Research 2009, 30:83-89.
68. Young S.G., Sacco D.F., Hugenberg K. Vulnerability to disease is associated with a domain-specific preference for symmetrical faces relative to symmetrical non-face stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology 2011, 41:558-563.