Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 965–971 | Cite as

Men’s, but not Women’s, Sociosexual Orientation Predicts Couples’ Perceptions of Sexually Dimorphic Cues in Own-Sex Faces

  • Michal Kandrik
  • Corey L. Fincher
  • Benedict C. Jones
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
Original Paper


Previous research suggests that people’s perceptions of own-sex individuals can change according to within-individual variation in their romantic partners’ sexual strategies. For example, men are more likely to perceive other men’s faces as looking particularly dominant during the fertile phase of their partner’s menstrual cycle, when women tend to be more open to uncommitted sexual relationships. By contrast, little is known about how relatively stable between-individuals differences in partners’ openness to uncommitted sexual relationships (i.e., their sociosexual orientation) predict perceptions of own-sex individuals. The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) assesses individuals’ openness to uncommitted sexual relationships and shows high test–retest reliability over long periods of time. Consequently, we tested whether the SOI-R scores of men and women in heterosexual romantic couples predicted their perceptions of own-sex faces displaying exaggerated sex-typical cues. Men’s, but not women’s, SOI-R was positively correlated with the extent to which both the man and woman within a couple ascribed high dominance and attractiveness to own-sex faces with exaggerated sex-typical cues. In other words, individuals in couples where the man reported being particularly open to uncommitted sexual relationships were more likely to ascribe dominance and attractiveness to own-sex individuals displaying a putative cue of good phenotypic condition. These findings suggest that both men’s and women’s perceptions of potential competitors for mates are sensitive to the male partner’s sexual strategy. Such individual differences in perceptions may benefit men’s ability to compete for extra-pair and/or replacement mates and benefit women’s mate guarding behaviors.


Sociosexual orientation Sexual dimorphism Faces Dominance Attractiveness 



Corey Fincher is supported by Economic and Social Research Council Grant ES/I031022/1, which was awarded to Lisa M. DeBruine and Benedict C. Jones. Benedict C. Jones is supported by European Research Council Starting Grant 282655 (OCMATE).


  1. Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burriss, R. P., & Little, A. C. (2006). Effects of partner conception risk phase on male perception of dominance in faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate-preference drives mate-choice: Men’s self-rated masculinity predicts their female partner’s preference for masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1023–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeBruine, L. M., Fincher, C. L., Watkins, C. D., Little, A. C., & Jones, B. C. (2012). Preference versus choice: Do face preferences predict actual partner choice? Paper presented at the meeting of the Human behavior and evolution society conference, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  5. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L. G., Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., et al. (2006). Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner’s masculinity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273, 1355–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fink, B., Neave, N., & Seydel, H. (2007). Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women. American Journal of Human Biology, 19, 82–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partners’ mate-retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 975–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glassenberg, A. N., Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2010). Sex-dimorphic face shape preference in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1289–1296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hughes, S., Dispenza, F., & Gallup, G. G. (2004). Ratings of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Main, J. C., Little, A. C., Welling, L. L. M., Feinberg, D. R., et al. (2010). Facial cues of dominance modulate the short-term gaze-cuing effect in human observers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 277, 617–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, B. C., Fincher, C. L., Welling, L. L. M., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., Watkins, C. D., et al. (2013). Salivary cortisol and pathogen disgust predict men’s preferences for feminine shape cues in women’s faces. Biological Psychology, 92, 233–240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Connor, J. J. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). The influence of facial masculinity and voice pitch on jealousy and perceptions of intrasexual rivalry. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Puts, D. A., Barndt, J. L., Welling, L. L. M., Dawood, K., & Burriss, R. P. (2011). Intrasexual competition among women: Vocal femininity affects perceptions of attractiveness and flirtatiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Puts, D. A., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2012). Sexual selection on human faces and voices. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 227–243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behaviour: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sacco, D. F., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2012). The roles of sociosexual orientation and relationship status in women’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1044–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., Von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 276, 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watkins, C. D., Fraccaro, P. J., Smith, F. G., Vukovic, J., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., et al. (2010a). Taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance in other men. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 943–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watkins, C. D., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2010b). Individual differences in dominance perception: Dominant men are less sensitive to facial cues of male dominance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 967–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watkins, C. D., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012a). Cues to the sex ratio of the local population influence women’s preferences for facial symmetry. Animal Behaviour, 83, 545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watkins, C. D., Quist, M., Smith, F. G., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2012b). Individual differences in women’s perceptions of other women’s dominance. European Journal of Personality, 26, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waynforth, D., Delwadia, S., & Camm, M. (2005). The influence of women’s mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Welling, L. L. M., Persola, L., Wheatley, J. R., Cárdenas, R. A., & Puts, D. A. (2013). Competition and men’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michal Kandrik
    • 1
  • Corey L. Fincher
    • 1
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 1
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Neuroscience and PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations