Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 1119–1127 | Cite as

Effects of Partner Beauty on Opposite-Sex Attractiveness Judgments

  • Anthony C. Little
  • Christine A. Caldwell
  • Benedict C. Jones
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
Original Paper


Many studies show mate choice copying effects on mate preferences in non-human species in which individuals follow or copy the mate choices of same-sex conspecifics. Recent studies suggest that social learning also influences mate preferences in humans. Studies on heterosexual humans have focused on rating the attractiveness of potential mates (targets) presented alongside individuals of the opposite sex to the target (models). Here, we examined several different types of pairing to examine how specific social learning is to mate preferences. In Study 1, we replicated a previous effect whereby target faces of the opposite sex to the subject were rated as more attractive when paired with attractive than unattractive partner models of the same sex as the subject. Using the same paired stimuli, Study 2 demonstrated no effect of a paired model if subjects were asked to rate targets who were the same sex as themselves. In Study 3, we used pairs of the same sex, stating the pair were friends, and subjects rated targets of the opposite sex to themselves. Attractive models decreased targets’ attractiveness, opposite to the effect in Study 1. Finally, Study 4 examined if attractive versus unattractive non-face stimuli might influence attraction. Unlike in Study 1, pairing with attractive stimuli either had no effect or decreased the attractiveness of paired target face images. These data suggest that social transmission of preferences via pairing with attractive/unattractive images is relatively specific to learning about mate preferences but does not influence attractiveness judgments more generally.


Social transmission Facial attractiveness Mate choice copying Learning Beauty 



Anthony Little is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.


  1. Brown, G. R., & Fawcett, T. W. (2005). Sexual selection: Copycat mating in birds. Current Biology, 15, R626–R628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dugatkin, L. A. (2000). The imitation factor: Evolution beyond the gene. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, J. G. J. (1992). Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia-Reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 249, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, J. G. J. (1993). Female mate copying in the guppy (Poecilia-Reticulata)—age-dependent effects. Behavioral Ecology, 4, 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eva, K. W., & Wood, T. J. (2006). Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175, 1573–1574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galef, B. G., & Laland, K. N. (2005). Social learning in animals: Empirical studies and theoretical models. BioScience, 55, 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galef, B. G., & White, D. J. (1998). Mate-choice copying in Japanese quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Animal Behaviour, 55, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geiselman, R. E., Haight, N. A., & Kimata, L. G. (1984). Context effects on the perceived physical attractiveness of faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godin, J. G. J., Herdman, E. J. E., & Dugatkin, L. A. (2005). Social influences on female mate choice in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata: Generalized and repeatable trait-copying behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 69, 999–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: Opposite effects for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 635–647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoglund, J., Alatalo, R. V., Gibson, R. M., & Lundberg, A. (1995). Mate-choice copying in black grouse. Animal Behaviour, 49, 1627–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., & Feinberg, D. R. (2007). Social transmission of face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 274, 899–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Watkins, C. D., & Feinberg, D. R. (2011). ‘Eavesdropping’ and perceived male dominance rank in humans. Animal Behaviour, 81, 1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallamm, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Caldwell, C. A. (2008). Social influence in human face preference: Men and women are influenced more for long-term than short-term attractiveness decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 268, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Caldwell, C. A. (2011). Social learning and human mate preferences: A potential mechanism for generating and maintaining between-population diversity in attraction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 366, 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Little, A. C., & Mannion, H. (2006). Viewing attractive or unattractive same-sex individuals changes self-rated attractiveness and face preferences in women. Animal Behaviour, 72, 981–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., et al. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowland, D. R., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2010). Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rowland, D. A., & Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 15, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schlupp, I., & Ryan, M. J. (1997). Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sigall, H., & Landy, D. (1973). Radiating beauty: Effects of having a physically attractive partner on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swaddle, J. P., Cathey, M. G., Correll, M., & Hodkinson, B. P. (2005). Socially transmitted mate preferences in a monogamous bird: A non-genetic mechanism of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 272, 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial texture for perception research. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Uller, T., & Johansson, L. C. (2003). Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect: Are married men more attractive? Human Nature, 14, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vandenberg, S. G. (1972). Assortative mating or who marries whom? Behavior Genetics, 2, 127–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans. Human Nature, 18, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 230–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White, D. J. (2004). Influences of social learning on mate-choice decisions. Learning & Behavior, 32, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White, D. J., & Galef, B. G. (2000). ‘Culture’ in quail: Social influences on mate choices of female Coturnix japonica. Animal Behaviour, 59, 975–979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Witte, K., & Ryan, M. J. (2002). Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna, in the wild. Animal Behaviour, 63, 943–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony C. Little
    • 1
  • Christine A. Caldwell
    • 1
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 2
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingScotland, UK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations