Abstract
A body of literature has investigated female mate choice in the pre-mating context (pre-mating sexual selection). Humans, however, are long-living mammals forming pair-bonds which sequentially produce offspring. Post-mating evaluations of a partner’s attractiveness may thus significantly influence the reproductive success of men and women. I tested herein the theory that the attractiveness of putative sons provides extra information about the genetic quality of fathers, thereby influencing fathers’ attractiveness across three studies. As predicted, facially attractive boys were more frequently attributed to attractive putative fathers and vice versa (Study 1). Furthermore, priming with an attractive putative son increased the attractiveness of the putative father with the reverse being true for unattractive putative sons. When putative fathers were presented as stepfathers, the effect of the boy’s attractiveness on the stepfather’s attractiveness was lower and less consistent (Study 2). This suggests that the presence of an attractive boy has the strongest effect on the perceived attractiveness of putative fathers rather than on non-fathers. The generalized effect of priming with beautiful non-human objects also exists, but its effect is much weaker compared with the effects of putative biological sons (Study 3). Overall, this study highlighted the importance of post-mating sexual selection in humans and suggests that the heritable attractive traits of men are also evaluated by females after mating and/or may be used by females in mate poaching.
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
References
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666.
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Andersson, M., & Simmons, L. W. (2006). Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 296–302.
Bleu, J., Bessa-Gomes, C., & Laloi, D. (2012). Evolution of female choosiness and mating frequency: Effects of mating cost, density and sex ratio. Animal Behaviour, 83, 131–136.
Brase, G. L. (2006). Cues of parental investment as a factor in attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 145–157.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361.
Cela-Conde, C. J., Marty, G., Maestu, F., Ortiz, T., Munar, E., Fernández, A., et al. (2004). Activation of the prefrontal cortex in the human visual aesthetic perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 6321–6325.
Chang, L., Lu, H. J., Li, H., & Li, T. (2011). The face that launched a thousand ships: The mating–warring association in men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 976–984.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Corman, H., & Kaestner, R. (1992). The effects of child health on marital status and family structure. Demography, 29, 389–408.
Cornwell, R. E., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Sexy sons and sexy daughters: The influence of parents’ facial characteristics on offspring. Animal Behaviour, 76, 1843–1853.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L. G., Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, D. I., et al. (2006). Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner’s masculinity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 273, 1355–1360.
Fiedler, K., Bluemke, M., & Unkelbach, C. (2011). On the adaptive flexibility of evaluative priming. Memory and Cognition, 39, 557–572.
Fisher, H. (1987). The four year itch. Natural History, 10, 22–29.
Galdikas, B. M. F., & Wood, J. W. (1990). Birth spacing patterns in humans and apes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83, 185–191.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.
Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42.
Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.
Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 251–267.
Johnstone, R. A. (1995). Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle–reviewing evidence. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 70, 1–65.
Johnstone, R. A., Reynolds, J. D., & Deutsch, J. C. (1996). Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution, 50, 1382–1391.
Jokela, M. (2009). Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: Evidence from the late 20th century United States. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 342–350.
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.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116.
Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M. D., & Morley, J. (2003). The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270, 653–664.
Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D., & Brooks, R. (2006). Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 37, 43–66.
Kokko, H., & Monaghan, P. (2001). Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecology Letters, 4, 159–165.
La Cerra, M. M. (1995). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations for assessing a man’s willingness to invest in offspring. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Lee, A. J., & Zietsch, B. P. (2011). Experimental evidence that women’s mate preferences are directly influenced by cues of pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity. Biology Letters, 7, 892–895.
Levinson, J. (2005). The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lie, H. C., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2008). Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Evolution, 62, 2473–2486.
Little, A. C., Cohen, D. L., Jones, B. C., & Belsky, J. (2007). Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 967–973.
Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 278, 2032–2039.
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, 273, 3093–3099.
Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioural Processes, 51, 45–61.
Marlowe, F. W., & Berbesque, J. C. (2012). The human operational sex ratio: Effects of marriage, concealed ovulation, and menopause on mate competition. Journal of Human Evolution, 63, 834–842.
Mauldon, J. (1992). Children’s risks of experiencing divorce and remarriage: Do disabled children destabilize marriages? Population Studies, 46, 349–362.
Millar, M. G., & Ostlund, N. M. (2006). The effects of a parenting prime on sex differences in mate selection criteria. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1459–1468.
Minear, M., & Park, D. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633.
Møller, A. P., & Alatalo, R. (1999). Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 266, 85–91.
Mortensen, C. R., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Infection breeds reticence: The effects of disease salience on self-perceptions of personality and behavioral avoidance tendencies. Psychological Science, 21, 440–447.
Park, J. H., Schaller, M., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Pathogen-avoidance mechanisms and the stigmatization of obese people. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 410–414.
Pavey, L. J., & Sparks, P. (2012). Autonomy and defensiveness: Experimentally increasing adaptive responses to health-risk information via priming and self-affirmation. Psychology & Health, 27, 259–276.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions, and male facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 268, 1617–1623.
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically-further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39–48.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., & Minamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741–742.
Prokop, P., & Fedor, P. (2011). Physical attractiveness influences reproductive success of modern men. Journal of Ethology, 29, 453–458.
Prokop, Z. M., Michalczyk, L., Drobniak, S. M., Herdegen, M., & Radwan, J. (2012). Meta-analysis suggests choosy females get sexy sons more than “good genes”. Evolution, 66, 2665–2673.
Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175.
Rantala, M. J., Coetzee, V., Moore, F. R., Skrinda, I., Kecko, S., Krama, T., et al. (2013). Adiposity, compared with masculinity, serves as a more valid cue to immunocompetence in human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, 280, 20122495.
Reichman, N. E., Corman, H., & Noonan, K. (2004). Effects of child health on parents’ relationship status. Demography, 41, 569–584.
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, 270, 93–95.
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201.
Roberts, S. C., & Little, A. C. (2008). Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetica, 134, 31–43.
Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex: Cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 393–404.
Roney, J. R., Hanson, K. N., Durante, K. M., & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men’s faces: women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 273, 2169–2175.
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Angleitner, A., Ault, L., Austers, I., et al. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person’s partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 560–584.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 560–584.
Scott, I. M. L., Clark, A. P., Boothroyd, L. G., & Penton-Voak, I. (2013). Do men’s faces really signal heritable immunocompetence? Behavioral Ecology, 24, 579–589.
Soler, J. J., Cuervo, J. J., Møller, A. P., & de Lope, F. (1998). Nest building is a sexually selected behaviour in barn swallows. Animal Behaviour, 56, 1435–1442.
Soler, J. J., de Neve, L., Martinez, J. G., & Soler, M. (2001). Nest size affects clutch size and the start of incubation in magpies: an experimental study. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 301–307.
Soler, J. J., Møller, A. P., & Soler, M. (1998). Nest building, sexual selection and parental investment. Evolutionary Ecology, 12, 427–441.
Swaminathan, S., Alexander, G., & Boulet, S. (2006). Delivering a very low birth weight infant and the subsequent risk of divorce or separation. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10, 473–479.
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.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Watkins, C. D., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Jones, B. C. (2012). Priming concerns about pathogen threat versus resource scarcity: Dissociable effects on women’s perceptions of men’s attractiveness and dominance. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66, 1549–1556.
Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635–653.
Zietsch, B. P., Verweij, K. J. H., & Burri, A. V. (2012). Heritability of preferences for multiple cues of mate quality in humans. Evolution, 66, 1762–1772.
Acknowledgments
David Livingstone and Adam Pazda improved the English of the article. The Editor and two anonymous referees made insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prokop, P. The Putative Son’s Attractiveness Alters the Perceived Attractiveness of the Putative Father. Arch Sex Behav 44, 1713–1721 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0496-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0496-2