Zusammenfassung
Evolutionspsychologen haben wiederholt Beweise dafür geliefert, dass es physische Merkmale gibt, die bei der Attraktivitätseinschätzung besondere Bedeutung haben und unsere Partnerpräferenzen beeinflussen. Merkmale schöner Gesichter sind nach wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen deshalb attraktiv, weil sie letztendlich Rückschlüsse auf die Qualität eines potenziellen Geschlechtspartners zulassen. Die Tatsache, dass der Menstruationszyklus die Partnerpräferenzen von Frauen beeinflusst, wird als Ausdruck differenzieller Partnerwahlkriterien im Hinblick auf den Reproduktionserfolg erklärt. Maskuline Gesichter signalisieren ein höheres Potenzial an Fortpflanzungswahrscheinlichkeit, werden von Frauen an den Tagen erhöhter Empfängniswahrscheinlichkeit bevorzugt, erhalten jedoch weniger positive Persönlichkeitsattribute. Feminine Männergesichter kennzeichnen einen „guten Vater“, erhalten den Vorzug während der nichtfruchtbaren Tage und werden hinsichtlich ihrer Persönlichkeit positiver eingestuft. Dieser Artikel erklärt den „adaptiven Kompromiss“, den Frauen bei der Wahl eines Mannes eingehen, aus verhaltensbiologischer Perspektive und beschreibt das Phänomen der zyklusabhängigen Partnerwahl anhand einiger aktueller Arbeiten.
Abstract
Evolutionary psychologists have repeatedly provided evidence that there are indeed physical features of certain importance for judging attractiveness and that these affect our partner preferences. According to scientific findings, features of beautiful faces are considered attractive because they provide cues to the quality of a potential partner. The fact that the menstruation cycle influences female mate preferences is thought to be an expression of differential mate choice criteria with regard to reproductive success. Masculine faces signal a higher reproductive potential and are preferred by women at times of high conception probability, but receive fewer positive personality attributions. Feminine male faces characterize a “good father” and are preferred at days of low conception likelihood, but they receive more positive personality attributions. This article explains the “adaptive compromise” that women make regarding their mating decisions from an evolutionary psychological perspective and discusses the phenomenon of menstrual-cycle-dependent mate preferences with reference to some recent studies.
Literatur
Dabbs JM, Dabbs MG (2000) Heroes, rogues, and lovers: testosterone and behavior: McGraw Hill, New York
Feinberg DR, Jones BC, Law Smith MJ et al. (2006) Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Horm Behav 49: 215–222
Fink B, Penton-Voak I (2002) Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11: 154–158
Fink B, Sövegjarto O (2006) Pheromone, Körpergeruch, und Partnerwahl. Gynäkologe 39: 731–740
Fink B, Manning JT, Neave N et al. (2004) Second to fourth digit ratio and facial asymmetry. Evol Hum Behav 25: 125–132
Fink B, Grammer K, Mitteroecker P et al. (2005) Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape. Proc Biol Sci 272: 1995–2001
Gangestad SW, Simpson JA (2000) The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 23: 573–644
Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (1998) Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proc Biol Sci 265: 927–933
Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Garver CE (2002) Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partners‘ mate-retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proc Biol Sci 269: 975–982
Gangestad SW, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ et al. (2004) Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychol Sci 15: 203–207
Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the roles of averageness and symmetry. J Comp Psychol 108: 233–242
Grammer K, Fink B, Møller AP et al. (2003) Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 78: 385–407
Haselton MG, Gangestad SW (2006) Conditional expression of women’s desires and men’s mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Horm Behav 49: 509–518
Havlicek J, Roberts SC, Flegr J (2005) Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biol Lett 1: 256–259
Joechle W (1973) Coitus induced ovulation. Contraception 7: 523–564
Johnston VS, Hagel R, Franklin M et al. (2001) Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone mediated adaptive design. Evol Hum Behav 22: 251–267
Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd L et al. (2005) Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone level is high. Horm Behav 48: 283–290
Manning JT, Fink B, Neave N et al. (2006) The 2nd to 4th digit ratio and asymmetry. Ann Hum Biol 33: 480–492
Pawlowski B, Jasienska G (2005) Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected duration of relationship. Biol Psychol 70: 38–43
Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI, Lipowicz A (2000) Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature 403: 156
Penton-Voak IS, Chen JY (2004) High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evol Hum Behav 25: 229–241
Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2000) Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evol Hum Behav 21: 39–48
Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL et al. (1999) Female preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature 399: 741–742
Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I et al. (1998) Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394: 884–887
Roberts SC, Havlicek J, Flegr J et al. (2004) Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proc Biol Sci [Suppl 5] 271: S270–272
Roney JR, Hanson KN, Durante KM et al. (2006) Reading men’s faces: women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proc Biol Sci 273: 2169–2175
Service R (1998) New role of estrogen in cancer. Science 279: 1631–1632
Swaddle JP, Reierson GW (2002) Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc Biol Sci 269: 2285–2289
Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 3: 452–460
Thornhill R, Grammer K (1999) The body and face of woman: one ornament that signals quality? Evol Hum Behav 20: 105–120
Thornhill R, Møller AP (1997) Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 72: 497–548
Toveé MJ, Tasker K, Benson PJ (2000) Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body? Evol Hum Behav 21: 191–200
Van Valen L (1962) A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evol Int J Org Evol 16: 125–142
Wilcox AJ, Dunson D, Baird DD (2000) The timing of the „fertile window“ in the menstrual cycle: day specific estimates from a prospective study. BMJ 321: 1259–1262
Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection – a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53: 205–214
Interessenkonflikt
Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fink, B., Sövegjarto, O. Physische Attraktivität und zyklusabhängige Partnerpräferenzen. Gynäkologe 40, 729–736 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-007-2039-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-007-2039-y