More than just a pretty face and a hot body: Multiple cues in mate-choice

Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 152, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 174-184

  Jonason, Peter K ^a   Raulston, Tara ^b   Rotolo, Ashley ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA   (United States)

^c FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

body; budget allocation; face; mate preferences; sex differences

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CHARACTER; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; ESTHETICS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMAN; MALE; MARRIAGE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BEAUTY; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; CHARACTER; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CUES; CULTURE; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMANS; MALE; MARRIAGE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856879524     PISSN: 00224545     EISSN: 19401183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2011.586654     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Brunswick, E. (1955). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
3. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
4. Candolin, U. (2003). The use of multiple cues in mate-choice. Biological Reviews, 78, 575-595.
5. Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: Men's priority shifts towards bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 348-353.
6. Currie, T. E., & Little, T. (2009). The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 409-416.
7. Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2006). Facial symmetry and judgments of attractiveness, health, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 491-499.
8. Gibson, R. M. (1996). Female choice in sage grouse: The roles of attraction and active comparison. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39, 55-59.
9. Holland, B., & Rice,W. R. (1998). Perspective: Chase-away sexual selection: Antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52, 1-7.
10. Johnstone, R. A. (1996).Multiple displays in animal communication: 'Backup signals' and 'multiple messages'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 351, 329-338.
11. Kowner, R. (2001). Psychological perspective on human developmental stability and fluctuating asymmetry: Sources, applications and implications. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 447-469.
12. Kunzler, R., & Bakker, T. C. M. (2001). Female preferences for single and combined traits in computer animated stickleback males. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 681-685.
13. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
14. Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for shortterm mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468-489.
15. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings from the Royal Society of London, B7, 269, 1095-1100.
16. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate-choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190-198.
17. Penton-Voak, I., Jacobson, A., & Trivers, R. (2004). Populational differences in attractiveness judgments of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 355-370.
18. Perilloux, H. K., Webster, G. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2010). Signals of genetic quality and maternal investment capacity: The dynamic effects of fluctuating asymmetry and waist-to-hip ration on men's ratings of women's attractiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 34-42.
19. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eyetracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 524-533.
20. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waistto- hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
21. Smith, K. L., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovee, M. J. (2007). Color 3D bodies and judgments of human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 48-54.
22. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuation asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297-302.
23. Thornhill, R., & Grammar, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 105-120.
24. Thornhill, R., & Moller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease, and medicine. Biological Reviews, 72, 497-548.