Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 12, pp 1549–1556 | Cite as

Priming concerns about pathogen threat versus resource scarcity: dissociable effects on women’s perceptions of men’s attractiveness and dominance

  • Christopher D. Watkins
  • Lisa M DeBruine
  • Anthony C. Little
  • David R. Feinberg
  • Benedict C. Jones
Original Paper

Abstract

Previous experimental work suggests flexibility in women’s mate preferences that appears to reflect the advantages of choosing healthy mates under conditions of pathogen threat and of choosing prosocial mates under conditions of resource scarcity. Following this work, we used an established priming paradigm to examine the effects of priming women’s concerns about pathogen threat versus resource scarcity on their judgments of men’s facial attractiveness and dominance. We found that women reported stronger attraction to masculine men when their concerns about pathogens were activated than when their concerns about resource scarcity were activated. In contrast, we found that women were more likely to ascribe high dominance to masculine men when their concerns about resource scarcity were activated than when their concerns about pathogens were activated. This latter result may reflect the greater importance of identifying men who pose a substantial threat to women’s resources and personal safety when resources are scarce and violence towards women is particularly common. Together, these findings suggest a double dissociation between the effects of pathogen threat and resource scarcity on women’s perceptions of the attractiveness and dominance of masculine men, potentially revealing considerably greater specialization (i.e., context specificity) in the effects of environmental threats on women’s perceptions of men than was apparent in previous research.

Keywords

Context specificity Face perception Masculinity Pathogen threat Prosocial mates Priming Resource scarcity 

References

  1. Apicella CL, Feinberg DR, Marlowe FW (2007) Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter–gatherers. Biol Lett 3:682–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergeron P, Grignolio S, Apollonio M, Shipley B, Festa-Bianchet M (2010) Secondary sexual characters signal fighting ability and determine social rank in Alpine ibex (Capra ibex). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1299–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, DeBruine LM, Perrett DI (2008) Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol Hum Behav 29:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boothroyd LG, Cross CP, Gray AW, Coombes C, Gregson-Curtis K (2011) Perceiving the facial correlates of sociosexuality: further evidence. Pers Indiv Differ 50:422–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burriss RP, Welling LLM, Puts DA (2011) Mate-preference drives mate-choice: men’s self-rated masculinity predicts their female partner’s preference for masculinity. Pers Indiv Differ 51:1023–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Cooper PA, Penke L, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP (2006) Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner’s masculinity. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1355–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Crawford JR, Welling LLM, Little AC (2010a) The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2405–2410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Griskevicius V (2010b) Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not moral or sexual disgust. Evol Hum Behav 31:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Crawford JR, Welling LLM (2011a) Further evidence for regional variation in women’s masculinity preferences. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:813–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Watkins CD, Roberts SC, Little AC, Smith FG, Quist M (2011b) Opposite-sex siblings decrease attraction, but not prosocial attributions, to self-resembling opposite-sex faces. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:11710–11714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan LA, Schaller M, Park JH (2009) Perceived vulnerability to disease: development and validation of a 15-item self-report instrument. Pers Indiv Differ 47:441–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emlen DJ (2008) The evolution of animal weapons. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 39:387–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feinberg DR, DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, O’Connor JJM, Tigue CC (2012) Women’s self-perceptions of health and attractiveness predict male vocal masculinity preferences in different directions across short- and long-term relationship contexts. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fink B, Neave N, Seydel H (2007) Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women. Am J Hum Biol 19:82–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gangestad SW, Simpson JA (2000) The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 23:675–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gangestad SW, Merriman LA, Thompson ME (2010) Men’s oxidative stress, fluctuating asymmetry and physical attractiveness. Anim Behav 80:1005–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes SM, Gallup GG Jr (2003) Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evol Hum Behav 24:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jewkes R (2002) Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet 359:1423–1429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston VS, Hagel R, Franklin M, Fink B, Grammer K (2001) Male facial attractiveness: evidence of hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evol Hum Behav 22:251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Little AC, Conway CA, Welling LLM, Smith FG (2007) Sensation seeking and men’s face preferences. Evol Hum Behav 28:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Main JC, Little AC, Welling LLM, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP (2010) Facial cues of dominance modulate the short-term gaze-cuing effect in human observers. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee AJ, Zietsch BP (2011) Experimental evidence that women’s mate preferences are directly influenced by cues of pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity. Biol Lett 7:892–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Little AC, Jones BC (2003) Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:1759–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Little AC, Cohen DL, Jones BC, Belsky J (2007) Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:967–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Little AC, DeBruine LM, Jones BC (2011a) Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:2032–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM (2011b) Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philos T Roy Soc B 366:1638–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde JJ, Soler AJ, Vicente J, Gortazar C, Gomendio M (2009) What does testosterone do for red deer males? Proc R Soc Lond B 276:971–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marty JS, Higham JP, Gadsby EL, Ross C (2009) Dominance, coloration, and social and sexual behavior in male drills Mandrillus leucophaeus. Int J Primatol 30:807–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore FR, Cassidy C (2007) Female status predicts female mate preferences across nonindustrial societies. Cross-Cult Res 41:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore FR, Cassidy C, Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI (2006) The effects of female control of resources on sex differentiated mate preferences. Evol Hum Behav 27:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Connor JJM, Re DE, Feinberg DR (2011) Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity. Evol Psychol 9:64–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connor JJM, Fraccaro PJ, Feinberg DR (2012) The influence of male voice pitch on women’s perceptions of relationship investment. J Evol Psychol 10:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Park JH, van Leeuwen F, Stephen ID (2012) Homeliness is in the disgust sensitivity of the beholder: relatively unattractive faces appear especially unattractive to individuals higher in pathogen disgust. Evol Hum Behav 33:569–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pelletier F, Festa-Bianchet M (2006) Sexual selection and social rank in bighorn rams. Anim Behav 71:649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prentice DA, Miller DT (1992) When small effects are impressive. Psychol Bull 112:160–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Pemberton JM, Coltman DW, Wilson K (2003) Overt and covert competition in a promiscuous mammal: the importance of weaponry and testes size to male reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Price ME, Kang J, Dunn J, Hopkins S (2011) Muscularity and attractiveness as predictors of human egalitarianism. Pers Indiv Differ 50:636–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Puts DA (2005) Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evol Hum Behav 26:388–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Puts DA (2010) Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evol Hum Behav 31:157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Puts DA, Apicella CL, Cardenas RA (2012a) Masculine voices signal men’s threat potential in foraging and industrial societies. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Puts DA, Welling LLM, Burriss RP, Dawood K (2012b) Men’s masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners’ reported orgasm frequency and timing. Evol Hum Behav 33:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rantala M, Moore FR, Skrinda I, Krama T, Kivleniece I, Kecko S, Krams I (2012) Evidence for the stress linked immunocompetence handicap in humans. Nat Commun 3:694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rhodes G, Chan J, Zebrowitz LA, Simmons LW (2003) Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proc R Soc Lond B 270:S93–S95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhodes G, Simmons L, Peters M (2005) Attractiveness and sexual behaviour: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol Hum Behav 26:186–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rowland DA, Perrett DI (1995) Manipulating facial appearance through shape and colour. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 15:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos ESA, Scheck D, Nakagawa S (2011) Dominance and plumage traits: meta-analysis and metaregression analysis. Anim Behav 82:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scott IML, Clark AP, Boothroyd LG, Penton-Voak IS (2012). Do men’s faces really signal heritable immunocompetence? Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/ars092
  48. Seielstad MT, Minch E, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1998) Genetic evidence for a higher female migration rate in humans. Nat Genet 20:278–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sell A, Cosmides L, Tooby J, Sznycer D, von Rueden C, Gurven M (2009a) Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sell A, Tooby J, Cosmides L (2009b) Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:15073–15078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shallice T (1988) From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stirrat M, Perrett DI (2010) Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychol Sci 21:349–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (2006) Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evol Hum Behav 27:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2001) Prototyping and transforming facial texture for perception research. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 21:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tybur JM, Gangestad SW (2011) Mate preferences and infectious disease: theoretical considerations and evidence in humans. Philos T Roy Soc B 366:3375–3388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watkins CD, Jones BC (2012) Priming men with different contest outcomes modulates their dominance perceptions. Behav Ecol 23:539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Watkins CD, Fraccaro PJ, Smith FG, Vukovic J, Feinberg DR, DeBruine LM, Jones BC (2010a) Taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance in other men. Behav Ecol 21:943–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watkins CD, Jones BC, DeBruine LM (2010b) Individual differences in dominance perception: dominant men are less sensitive to facial cues of male dominance. Pers Indiv Differ 49:967–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Welling LLM, Conway CA, DeBruine LM, Jones BC (2007a) Perceived vulnerability to disease predicts variation in preferences for apparent health in faces. J Evol Psychol 5:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Welling LLM, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Conway CA, Law Smith MJ, Little AC, Feinberg DR, Sharp M, Al-Dujaili EAS (2007b) Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with increased attraction to masculine faces. Horm Behav 52:156–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Welling LLM, Jones BC, DeBruine LM (2008a) Sex drive is positively associated with women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in men’s and women’s faces. Pers Indiv Differ 44:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Welling LLM, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Smith FG, Feinberg DR, Little AC, Al-Dujaili EAS (2008b) Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high. Horm Behav 54:703–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher D. Watkins
    • 1
  • Lisa M DeBruine
    • 2
  • Anthony C. Little
    • 3
  • David R. Feinberg
    • 4
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  3. 3.School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  4. 4.Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and BehaviourMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations