Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1415–1421 | Cite as

Sociosexuality Predicts Women’s Preferences for Symmetry in Men’s Faces

  • Michelle C. Quist
  • Christopher D. Watkins
  • Finlay G. Smith
  • Anthony C. Little
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
  • Benedict C. Jones
Original Paper

Abstract

Although men displaying cues of good physical condition possess traits that are desirable in a mate (e.g., good health), these men are also more likely to possess antisocial characteristics that are undesirable in a long-term partner (e.g., aggression and tendency to infidelity). How women resolve this trade-off between the costs and benefits associated with choosing a mate in good physical condition may lead to strategic variation in women’s mate preferences. Because the costs of choosing a mate with antisocial personality characteristics are greater in long- than short-term relationships, women’s sociosexuality (i.e., the extent to which they are interested in uncommitted sexual relationships) may predict individual differences in their mate preferences. Here we investigated variation in 99 heterosexual women’s preferences for facial symmetry, a characteristic that is thought to be an important cue of physical condition. Symmetry preferences were assessed using pairs of symmetrized and original (i.e., relatively asymmetric) versions of 10 male and 10 female faces. Analyses showed that women’s sociosexuality, and their sociosexual attitude in particular, predicted their preferences for symmetry in men’s, but not women’s, faces; women who reported being more interested in short-term, uncommitted relationships demonstrated stronger attraction to symmetric men. Our findings present new evidence for potentially adaptive variation in women’s symmetry preferences that is consistent with trade-off theories of attraction.

Keywords

Sociosexuality Mating strategy Symmetry Fluctuating asymmetry Face perception 

References

  1. Apicella, C. L., Feinberg, D. R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biology Letters, 3, 682–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2007). Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1161–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckingham, G., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Welling, L. L. M., Conway, C. A., Tiddeman, B. P., et al. (2006). Visual adaptation to masculine and feminine faces influences generalized preferences and perceptions of trustworthiness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L. M., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 277, 2405–2410.Google 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Furlow, B. F., Gangestad, S. W., & Armijo-Prewitt, T. (1998). Fluctuating asymmetry and human violence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 1–6.Google Scholar
  8. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes, S. M., 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
  12. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Conway, C. A., Welling, L. L. M., & Smith, F. G. (2007). Sensation seeking and men’s face preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koehler, N., Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2006). Do cyclic changes in women’s face preferences target cues to long-term health? Social Cognition, 24, 641–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 39–44.Google Scholar
  16. Little, A. C., & Jones, B. C. (2003). Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 279, 1759–1763.Google Scholar
  17. Little, A. C., & Jones, B. C. (2006). Attraction independent of detection suggests special mechanisms for symmetry preferences in human face perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273, 3093–3099.Google Scholar
  18. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2007). Preferences for symmetry in faces change across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology, 76, 209–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1638–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1095–1103.Google Scholar
  21. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Waitt, C., Tiddeman, B. P., Feinberg, D. R., Perrett, D. I., et al. (2008). Symmetry is related to sexual dimorphism in faces: Data across culture and species. PLoS One, 3, 2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oinonen, K. A., & Mazmanian, D. (2007). Facial symmetry detection ability changes across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology, 75, 136–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D., Burt, M., Koyabashi, T., & Murray, L. K. (1999). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature, 399, 741–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowland, D. R., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peters, M., Simmons, L. W., & Rhodes, G. (2009). Preferences across the menstrual cycle for masculinity and symmetry in photographs of male faces and bodies. PLoS ONE, 4, e4138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Provost, M. P., Kormos, C., Kosakoski, G., & Quinsey, V. L. (2006). Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculinization and somatotype in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 305–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Provost, M. P., Troje, N. F., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Short-term mating strategies and attraction to masculinity in point-light walkers. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect female preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rhodes, G., Chan, J., Zebrowitz, L. A., & Simmons, L. W. (2003). Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, S93–S95.Google Scholar
  34. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Sefcek, J. A. (2009). Sociosexuality and face perception: Unrestricted sexual orientation facilitates sensitivity to female facial cues. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 777–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48 nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311.Google Scholar
  37. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminate validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, F. G., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., De Bruine, L. M., Welling, L. L. M., Vukovic, J., et al. (2009). Hormonal contraceptive use and perceptions of trust modulate the effect of relationship context on women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Welling, L. L. M., Jones, B. C., De Bruine, L. M., Smith, F. G., Feinberg, D. R., Little, A. C., et al. (2008). Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high. Hormones and Behavior, 54, 703–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle C. Quist
    • 1
  • Christopher D. Watkins
    • 1
  • Finlay G. Smith
    • 1
  • Anthony C. Little
    • 2
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
    • 1
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Face Research Laboratory, School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations