Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness
- 1k Downloads
In humans (Homo sapiens), sexual dimorphism in face shape has been proposed to be linked to quality in both men and women. Although preferences for high-quality mates might be expected, previous work has suggested that high quality may be associated with decreased investment in partnerships. In line with a trade-off between partner quality and investment, human females have been found to prefer higher levels of masculinity when judging under conditions where the benefits of quality would be maximised and the costs of low investment would be minimised. In this study, we examined facultative preferences for masculinity/femininity under hypothetical high and low environmental harshness in terms of resource availability in which participants were asked to imagine themselves in harsh/safe environments. We demonstrate that environmental harshness influences preferences for sexual dimorphism differently according to whether the relationship is likely to be short or long term. Women prefer less-masculine male faces and men prefer less-feminine female faces for long-term than short-term relationships under conditions of environmental harshness. Such findings are consistent with the idea that high-quality partners may be low investors and suggest that under harsh ecological conditions, both men and women favour a low-quality/high-investment partner for long-term relationships. For short-term relationships, where investment is not an important variable, preferences for sexual dimorphism were similar for the low and high environmental harshness conditions. These results provide experimental evidence that human preferences may be contingent on the environment an individual finds itself inhabiting.
KeywordsAttractiveness Strategy Ecology Masculinity/femininity Harsh/safe
ACL is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.
- Chisholm JS (1996) The evolutionary ecology of attachment organization. Hum Nat 7:1–37Google Scholar
- Cohen DL (2004) Attachment, ecology, and mating strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Ellison PT (2001) Reproductive ecology and human evolution. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Hill K, Hurtado AM (1996) Ache life history: the ecology and demography of a foraging people. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Jones D, Hill K (1993) Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat 4:271–296Google Scholar
- Little AC, Perrett DI (2002) Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder. Psychologist 15:28–32Google Scholar
- 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 59–90Google Scholar
- 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 101–115Google Scholar
- Wilson M, Daly M (1997) Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. Br Med J 314:1271–1274Google Scholar