Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 6, pp 967–973 | Cite as

Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness

  • Anthony C. LittleEmail author
  • Danielle L. Cohen
  • Benedict C. Jones
  • Jay Belsky
Original Paper


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.


Attractiveness Strategy Ecology Masculinity/femininity Harsh/safe 



ACL is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.


  1. Anderson JL, Crawford CB, Nadeau J, Lindberg T (1992) Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of ideals of female body shape. Ethol Sociobiol 13:197–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belsky J, Steinberg L, Draper P (1991) Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy—an evolutionary-theory of socialization. Child Dev 62:647–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson PJ, Perrett DI (1993) Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception 22:257–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss DM, Barnes M (1986) Preferences in human mate selection. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell KL, Wood JW (1994) Human reproductive ecology: interactions of environment, fertility, and behaviour. Ann NY Acad Sci 709:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chisholm JS (1996) The evolutionary ecology of attachment organization. Hum Nat 7:1–37Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Cunningham MR (1986) Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:925–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellison PT (2001) Reproductive ecology and human evolution. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Gangestad SW, Haselton MG, Buss DM (2006) Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychol Inq 17:75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geary DC, Vigil J, Byrd-Craven J (2004) Evolution of human mate choice. J Sex Res 41:27–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 108:233–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill K, Hurtado AM (1996) Ache life history: the ecology and demography of a foraging people. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones D, Hill K (1993) Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat 4:271–296Google Scholar
  16. Little AC, Hancock PJ (2002) The role of masculinity and distinctiveness on the perception of attractiveness in human male faces. Br J Psychol 93:451–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Little AC, Perrett DI (2002) Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder. Psychologist 15:28–32Google Scholar
  18. Little AC, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2001) Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2002a) Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1095–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Mace R (2000) Evolutionary ecology of human life history. Anim Behav 59:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Møller AP, Thornhill R (1998) Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Anim Behav 55:1507–1515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, Minamisawa R (1999) Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399:741–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Jones BC, Burt DM, Tiddeman BP, Perrett DI (2003) Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 117:264–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 394:884–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 3:452–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2001) Prototyping and transforming facial texture for perception research. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 21:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson M, Daly M (1997) Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. Br Med J 314:1271–1274Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony C. Little
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Danielle L. Cohen
    • 3
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 4
  • Jay Belsky
    • 5
  1. 1.British Academy Centenary Project, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyLebanon Valley CollegeAnnvilleUSA
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  5. 5.Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social IssuesBirkbeck University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations