Heritability of preferences for multiple cues of mate quality in humans

Evolution

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1762-1772

  Zietsch, Brendan P ^a,b   Verweij, Karin J H ^a,b   Burri, Andrea V ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b QIMR BERGHOFER MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^c ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Heritability; Indirect benefits; Mate choice; Multiple ornaments; Sexual selection; Twin study

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; DECADAL VARIATION; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HERITABILITY; HUMAN EVOLUTION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPOUSE; TWINS;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPOUSES;

EID: 84861683790     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01546.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Agrawal, A., and M. T. Lynskey 2008. Are there genetic influences on addiction: evidence from family, adoption and twin studies. Addiction 103:1069-1081.
2. Andrew, T., D. J. Hart, H. Snieder, M. de Lange, T. D. Spector, and A. J. MacGregor 2001. Are twins and singletons comparable? A study of disease-related and lifestyle characteristics in adult women. Twin Res. 4:464-477.
3. Bakker, T. C. M., and A. Pomiankowski 1995. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8:129-171.
4. Bouchard, T. J., and M. McGue 2003. Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. J. Neurobiol. 54:4-45.
5. Brooks, R., and J. A. Endler 2001. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 55:1644-1655.
6. Burri, A. V., and T. D. Spector Recent and lifelong female sexual dysfunction in a female UK population sample: prevalence and risk factors. J. Sexual Med. 8:2420-2430.
7. Burri, A. V., Q. Rahman, and T. D. Spector Genetic and environmental risk factors for sexual distress and its association with female sexual dysfunction. Psychol. Med. 41:2435-2445.
8. Buss, D. M. 1989. Sex-differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12:1-14.
9. Buss, D. M., and M. Barnes 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. J. Per. and Soc. Psych. 50:559-570.
10. Candolin, U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 78:575-595.
11. Carey, G. 1992. Twin imitation for antisocial behaviour: implications for genetic and family environment research. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 101:18-25.
12. Chenoweth, S. F., and M. W. Blows 2006. Dissecting the complex genetic basis of mate choice. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7:681-692.
13. Chenoweth, S. F., and K. McGuigan 2010. The genetic basis of sexually selected variation. Ann Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41:81-101.
14. Cherkas, L. F., E. C. Oelsner, Y. T. Mak, A. Valdes, and T. D. Spector 2004. Genetic influences on female infidelity and number of sexual partners in humans: a linkage and association study of the role of the vasopressin receptor gene (AVPR1A). Twin Res. 7:649-658.
15. Collins, R. D., and R. T. Carde 1989. Heritable variation in pheremone response of the pink-bullworm, Pectinophora-gossypiella (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 15:2647-2659.
16. Courtiol, A., S. Picq, B. Godelle, M. Raymond, and J.-B. Ferdy 2010. From preferred to actual mate characteristics: the case of human body shape. PLos One 5:e13010.
17. Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray, London
18. Deary, I. J., F. M. Spinath, and T. C. Bates 2006. Genetics of intelligence. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 14:690-700.
19. DeBruine, L. M., B. C. Jones, J. R. Crawford, L. L. M. Welling, and A. C. Little 2010a. The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277:2405-2410.
20. DeBruine, L. M., B. C. Jones, J. M. Tybur, D. Lieberman, and V. Griskevicius 2010b. Women's preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not by moral or sexual disgust. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:69-74.
21. Delcourt, M., M. W. Blows, and H. D. Rundle 2010. Quantitative genetics of female mate preferences in an ancestral and a novel envrironment. Evolution 64:2758-2766.
22. Donohoe, M. L., W. von Hippel, and R. C. Brooks 2009. Beyond waist-hip ratio: experimental multivariate evidence that average women's torsos are most attractive. Behav. Ecol. 20:716-721.
23. Feingold, A. 1988. Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same sex friends: a meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychol. Bull. 104:226-235.
24. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K
25. Gangestad, S. W., and G. J. Scheyd 2005. The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34:523-548.
26. Gangestad, S. W., C. E. Garver-Apgar, J. A. Simpson, and A. J. Cousins 2007. Changes in women's mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92:151-163.
27. Gray, D. A., and W. H. Cade 1999. Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evolution 53:848-854.
28. Hall, M., A. K. Lindholm, and R. Brooks 2004. Direct selection on male attractiveness and female preference fails to produce a response. BMC Evol. Biol. 4. doi:
29. Hansen, T. F., C. Pelabon, and D. Houle 2011. Heritability is not evolvability. Evol. Biol. 38:258-277.
30. Hegyi, G., M. Herenyi, A. J. Wilson, L. Z. Garamszegi, B. Rosivall, M. Eens, and J. Torok 2010. Breeding experience and the heritability of female mate choice in collared flycatchers. PLos One 5:e13855.
31. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195-204.
32. Iyengar, V. K., H. K. Reeve, and T. Eisner 2002. Paternal inheritance of a female moth's mating preference. Nature 419:830-832.
33. Jang, Y. W., and M. D. Greenfield 2000. Quantitative genetics of female choice in an ultrasonic pyralid moth, Achroia grisella: variation and evolvability of preference along multiple dimensions of the male advertisement signal. Heredity 84:73-80.
34. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 72:283-327.
35. Johnson, A. M., P. A. Vernon, and A. R. Feiler 2008. Behavioral genetic studies of personality: an introduction and review of the results of 50+ years of research. Pp. 145-173 in G. Boyle, G. Matthews, and D. Saklofske, eds. Handbook of personality theory and assessment. Sage, London
36. Keller, M. C., and W. L. Coventry 2005. Quantifying and addressing parameter indeterminacy in the classical twin design. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 8:201-213.
37. Keller, M. C., S. E. Medland, L. E. Duncan, P. K. Hatemi, M. C. Neale, H. H. M. Maes, and L. J. Eaves 2009. Modeling extended twin family data I: description of the cascade model. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 12:8-18.
38. Keller, M. C., S. E. Medland, and L. E. Duncan 2010. Are extended twin family designs worth the trouble? A comparison of the bias, precision, and accuracy of parameters estimated in four twin family models. Behav. Genet. 40:377-393.
39. Kendler, K. S., L. M. Thornton, S. E. Gilman, and R. C. Kessler 2000. Sexual orientation in a US national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. Am. J. Psychiat. 157:1843-1846.
40. Kirk, K. M., J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne, and N. G. Martin 2000. Measurement models for sexual orientation in a community twin sample. Behav. Genet. 30:345-356.
41. Koenig, L. B., M. McGue, and W. G. Iacono 2009. Rearing environmental influences on religiousness: an investigation of adolescent adoptees. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 47:652-656.
42. Lee, A. J., and B. P. Zietsch 2011. Experimental evidence that women's mate preferences are directly influenced by cues of pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity. Biol. Lett. doi:.
43. Levinson, D. F. 2006. The genetics of depression: a review. Biol. Psychiat. 60:84-92.
44. Li, N. P., and D. T. Kenrick 2006. Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.90:468-489.
45. Loehlin, J. C. 1992. Genes and environment in personality development. Sage, Newbury Park, CA
46. Martin, N. G., L. J. Eaves, A. C. Heath, R. Jardine, L. M. Feingold, and H. J. Eysenck 1986. Transmission of social attitudes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83:4364-4368.
47. McCrae, R. R., T. A. Martin, M. Hrebickova, T. Urbanek, D. I. Boomsma, G. Willemsen, and P. T. Costa 2008. Personality trait similarity between spouses in four cultures. J. Pers. 76:1137-1163.
48. McGovern, R. J., M. C. Neale, and K. S. Kendler 1996. The independence of physical attractiveness and symptoms of depression in a female twin population. J. Psychol. 130:209-219.
49. Miller, G. F. 2000. The mating mind: how sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Doubleday, New York
50. Mitchell-Olds, T., J. H. Willis, and D. B. Goldstein 2007. Which evolutionary processes influence natural genetic variation for phenotypic traits? Nat. Rev. Genet. 8:845-856.
51. Neale, M. C., and L. R. Cardon 1992. Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Kluwer, Boston, MA
52. Neale, M. C., S. M. Boker, G. Xie, and H. H. Maes 2006. Mx: statistical modeling. Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University Box 900126, Richmond, VA
53. Peeters, H., S. Van Gestel, R. Vlietinck, C. Derom, and R. Derom 1998. Validation of a telephone zygosity questionnaire in twins of known zygosity. Behav. Genet. 28:159-163.
54. Phillips, T., E. Ferguson, and F. Rijsdijk 2010. A link between altruism and sexual selction: genetic influence on altruistic behaviour and mate preference towards it. Brit. J. Psychol. 101:809-819.
55. Posthuma, D., A. L. Beem, E. J. C. de Geus, G. C. M. van Baal, J. B. von Hjelmborg, I. Lachine, and D. I. Boomsma 2003. Theory and practice in quantitative genetics. Twin Res. 6:361-376.
56. Postma, E., S. C. Griffith, and R. Brooks 2006. Evolution of mate choice in the wild. Nature 444:E16-E16.
57. Price, R. A., and S. G. Vandenberg 1980. Spouse similarity in American and Swedish couples. Behav. Genet. 10:59-71.
58. Qvarnstrom, A., J. E. Brommer, and L. Gustafsson 2006. Testing the genetics underlying the co-evolution of mate choice and ornament in the wild. Nature 441:84-86.
59. Ryan, M. J. 1998. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999-2003.
60. Schielzeth, H., E. Bolund, and W. Forstmeier 2010. Heritability of and early environment effects on variation in mating preferences. Evolution 64:998-1006.
61. Simmons, L. W. 2004. Genotypic variation in calling song and female preferences of the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Anim. Behav. 68:313-322.
62. Singh, D., B. J. Dixson, T. S. Jessop, B. Morgan, and A. F. Dixson 2010. Cross-cultural consensus for waist-hip ratio and women's attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:176-181.
63. Spector, T. D., and F. M. K. Williams 2006. The UK Adult Twin Registry (TwinsUK). Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 9:899-906.
64. Todd, P. M., L. Penke, B. Fasolo, and A. P. Lenton 2007. Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:15011-15016.
65. Turelli, M., and N. H. Barton 2004. Polygenic variation maintained by balancing selection: pleiotropy, sex-dependent allelic effects and GxE interactions. Genetics 166:1053-1079.
66. Turkheimer, E. 2000. Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9:160-164.
67. Verweij, K. J. H., B. P. Zietsch, M. T. Lynskey, S. E. Medland, M. C. Neale, N. G. Martin, D. I. Boomsma, and J. Vink 2010. Genetic and environmental influences on cannabis use initiation and problematic use: a meta-analysis of twin studies. Addiction 105:417-430.
68. Watson, D., E. C. Klohnen, A. Casillas, E. N. Simms, J. Haig, and D. S. Berry 2004. Match makers and deal breakers: analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. J. Pers. 72:1029-1068.
69. Whitlock, M. C., and A. F. Agrawal 2009. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load though selection on males. Evolution 63:569-582.
70. Widemo, F., and S. A. Saether 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14:26-31.
71. Wood, D., and C. C. Brumbaugh 2009. Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96:1226-1244.
72. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-214.
73. Zhang, X. S., and W. G. Hill 2005. Genetic variability under mutation selection balance. Trends Ecol Evol 20:468-470.
74. Zietsch, B. P., K. J. H. Verweij, A. C. Heath, and N. G. Martin 2011. Variation in human mate choice: simultaneously investigating heritability, parental influence, sexual imprinting, and assortative mating. Am. Nat. 177:605-616.