Skip to main content

Sociosexuality in Women and Preference for Facial Masculinization and Somatotype in Men

Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 35, pages 305–312 (2006)Cite this article

Sociosexual orientation reflects individual differences in openness to short-term sexual relationships. We predicted that women with less restricted sociosexuality would be differentially attracted to highly masculinized male faces and bodies. In 2 studies, we investigated preference for male masculinization as a function of female sociosexuality. In Study 1, 40 female university students rated the attractiveness of pictures of male faces and somatotypes differing in masculinization level. All women preferred the faces with average levels of masculinity and the mesomorph somatotype; however, women with less restricted sociosexuality found the faces of men more attractive in general and showed relatively greater preference for masculinized bodies than did women with more restricted sociosexuality. In Study 2, 56 women met with 2 equally attractive male confederates, 1 highly masculinized and 1 less masculinized, in a “speed dating” scenario. After each date, women indicated their interest in each man for short-term and long-term relationships via questionnaire. In this more naturalistic context, sociosexuality was related to an increased interest for the more highly masculinized man in the context of short-term dating. Female sociosexuality appears to be related to preferences for higher levels of male masculinization.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

REFERENCES

  • Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexual represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 78, 537–545.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61–72.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, A. F., Halliwell, G., East, R., Wignarajah, P., & Anderson, M. J. (2003). Masculine somatotypes and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 22–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1974). Personality, premarital sexual permissiveness, and assortative mating. Journal of Sex Research, 10, 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist, 139, 603–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J.A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women's preferences for scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science, 265, 927–933.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Facial masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 231–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Flink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgments of apparent health: Support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 417–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perrett, D. I., Lee, K., Penton-Voak, I., Burt, D. M., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., et al. (1998). Sexual dimorphism and facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–886.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and sexual relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159–172.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swaddle, J. P., & Reierson, G. W. (2002). Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Science, 269, 2285–2289.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. M., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Personality and unrestricted sexual behavior: Correlations of sociosexuality in Caucasian and Asian college students. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 166–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Bone, R. N., Near, R., Mangelsdortf, D., & Brustman, B. (1972). What is the sensation seeker? Personality trait and experience correlates of the Sensation Seeking Scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 308–321.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Tushup, R., & Finner, S. (1976). Sexual attitudes and experience: Attitude and personality correlates and changes produced by a course in sexuality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 7–19.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank I. Penton-Voak for supplying us with the face stimuli, and the confederate men who helped with this study. Also, thanks to A. Clark, the Editor, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on earlier versions of this article. We would also like to acknowledge the support of a SSHRC postgraduate scholarship to Meghan Provost.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    Meghan P. Provost M.A., Graham Kosakoski B.Sc. & Vernon L. Quinsey Ph.D.

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

    Christine Kormos B.Sc.

  3. Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6

    Meghan P. Provost M.A.

Authors
  1. Meghan P. Provost M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Kormos B.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Graham Kosakoski B.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vernon L. Quinsey Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghan P. Provost M.A..

Appendix A

Appendix A

  1. 1.

    How many different partners do you foresee yourself having sex with during the next 5 years? (please give a specific, realistic estimate)

  2. 2.

    With how many different partners have you had sex (sexual intercourse) within the past year?

  3. 3.

    With how many different partners have you had sex on one and only one occasion?

  4. 4.

    How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your dating partner?

  5. 5.

    I think that sex without love is OK.

  6. 6.

    I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with different partners.

  7. 7.

    I would have to be closely attached to someone (both emotionally and psychologically) before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with him/her.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Provost, M.P., Kormos, C., Kosakoski, G. et al. Sociosexuality in Women and Preference for Facial Masculinization and Somatotype in Men. Arch Sex Behav 35, 305–312 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9029-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9029-3

KEY WORDS:

  • sociosexual orientation
  • masculinity preference
  • facial masculinization
  • somatotypes.