Skip to main content
Log in

Physische Attraktivität und zyklusabhängige Partnerpräferenzen

Physical attractiveness and cycle-dependent mate preferences

  • Frauengesundheit in der Praxis
  • Published:
Der Gynäkologe Aims and scope

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Dabbs JM, Dabbs MG (2000) Heroes, rogues, and lovers: testosterone and behavior: McGraw Hill, New York

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fink B, Penton-Voak I (2002) Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11: 154–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fink B, Sövegjarto O (2006) Pheromone, Körpergeruch, und Partnerwahl. Gynäkologe 39: 731–740

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fink B, Manning JT, Neave N et al. (2004) Second to fourth digit ratio and facial asymmetry. Evol Hum Behav 25: 125–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fink B, Grammer K, Mitteroecker P et al. (2005) Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape. Proc Biol Sci 272: 1995–2001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gangestad SW, Simpson JA (2000) The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 23: 573–644

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (1998) Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proc Biol Sci 265: 927–933

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the roles of averageness and symmetry. J Comp Psychol 108: 233–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Joechle W (1973) Coitus induced ovulation. Contraception 7: 523–564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnston VS, Hagel R, Franklin M et al. (2001) Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone mediated adaptive design. Evol Hum Behav 22: 251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Manning JT, Fink B, Neave N et al. (2006) The 2nd to 4th digit ratio and asymmetry. Ann Hum Biol 33: 480–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI, Lipowicz A (2000) Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature 403: 156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Penton-Voak IS, Chen JY (2004) High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evol Hum Behav 25: 229–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2000) Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evol Hum Behav 21: 39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL et al. (1999) Female preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature 399: 741–742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I et al. (1998) Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394: 884–887

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Service R (1998) New role of estrogen in cancer. Science 279: 1631–1632

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Swaddle JP, Reierson GW (2002) Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc Biol Sci 269: 2285–2289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 3: 452–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thornhill R, Grammer K (1999) The body and face of woman: one ornament that signals quality? Evol Hum Behav 20: 105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thornhill R, Møller AP (1997) Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 72: 497–548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Van Valen L (1962) A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evol Int J Org Evol 16: 125–142

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection – a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53: 205–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Fink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-007-2039-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation