Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences

  • Published:
Genetica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed a rapidly growing interest in the biological basis of human mate choice. Here we review recent studies that demonstrate preferences for traits which might reveal genetic quality to prospective mates, with potential but still largely unknown influence on offspring fitness. These include studies assessing visual, olfactory and auditory preferences for potential good-gene indicator traits, such as dominance or bilateral symmetry. Individual differences in these robust preferences mainly arise through within and between individual variation in condition and reproductive status. Another set of studies have revealed preferences for traits indicating complementary genes, focussing on discrimination of dissimilarity at genes in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). As in animal studies, we are only just beginning to understand how preferences for specific traits vary and inter-relate, how consideration of good and compatible genes can lead to substantial variability in individual mate choice decisions and how preferences expressed in one sensory modality may reflect those in another. Humans may be an ideal model species in which to explore these interesting complexities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MHC:

Major Histocompatibility Complex

HLA:

Human Leukocyte Antigen

FA:

Fluctuating Asymmetry

2D:4D:

second to fourth digit ratio

References

  • Barber N (1995) The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphology. Ethol Sociobiol 16:395–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett L, Dunbar R, Lycett J (2001) Human evolutionary psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson PPG (1978) Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding. Nature 273:659–660

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bellis MA, Baker RR (1990) Do females promote sperm competition—data for humans. Anim Behav 40:997–999

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereczkei T, Gyuris P, Koves P, Bernath L (2002) Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Pers Individ Diff 33:677–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereczkei T, Gyuris P, Weisfeld GE (2004) Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 271:1129–1134

    Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid E, Dion K, Walster E, Walster GW (1973) Physical attractiveness and dating choice: a test of the matching hypothesis. J Exp Soc Psy 7:173–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist D, Andersson M, Küpper C, Cuthill IC, Kis J, Lanctot RB, Sandercock BK, Székely T, Wallander K, Kempenaers B (2002) Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419:613–615

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JL (1997) A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav Ecol 8:60–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JL (1999) The new heterozygosity theory of mate choice and the MHC. Genetica 104:215–221

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown WM, Cronk L, Grochow K, Jacobson A, Liu CK, Popovic Z, Trivers R (2005) Dance reveals symmetry especially in young men. Nature 438:1148–1150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cao K, Hollenbach J, Shi X, Shi W, Chopek M, Fernandez-Vina MA (2001) Analysis of the frequencies of HLA-A, B and C alleles and haplotypes in the five major ethnic groups of the United States reveals high levels of diversity in these loci and contrasting distribution patterns in these populations. Hum Immunol 62:1009–1030

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas RA, Harris LJ (2007) Do women’s preferences for symmetry change across the menstrual cycle? Evol Hum Behav 28:96–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington M, Nelson GW, Martin MP, Kissner T, Vlahov D, Goedert JJ, Kaslow R, Buchbinder S, Hoots K, O’Brien SJ (1999) HLA and HIV-1: heterozygote advantage and B*35-Cw*04 disadvantage. Science 283:1748–1752

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm JS, Burbank VK (1991) Monogamy and polygyny in southeast Arnhem-land—male coercion and female choice. Ethol Sociobiol 12:291–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Colegrave N, Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL (2002) Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol Ecol Res 4:911–917

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwell RE, Boothroyd L, Burt DM, Feinberg DR, Jones BC, Little AC, Pitman R, Whiten S, Perrett DI (2004) Concordant preferences for opposite-sex signals? Human pheromones and facial characteristics. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 271:635–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly M, Wilson M, Weghorst SJ (1982) Male sexual jealousy. Ethol Sociobiol 3:11–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Danel D, Pawlowski B (2006) Attractiveness of men’s faces in relation to women’s phase of menstrual cycle. Collegium Antropol 30:285–289

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine L, Jones B, Perrett D (2005) Women’s attractiveness judgements of self-resembling faces change across the menstrual cycle. Horm Behav 47:379–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine LM (2002) Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269:1307–1312

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine LM (2005) Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 272:919–922

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Roy Soc Lond B 273:1355–1360

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003) A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity. J Mol Evol 57:85–97

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fan J, Dai W, Liu F, Wu J (2005) Visual perception of male body attractiveness. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 272:219–226

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg DR, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Moore FR, Law Smith MJ, Cornwell RE, Tiddeman BP, Boothroyd LG, Perrett DI (2005) The voice and face of woman: one ornament that signals quality? Evol Hum Behav 26:398–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg DR, Jones BC, Law-Smith MJ, Moore FR, DeBruine LM, Cornwell RE, Hillier SG, Perrett DI (2006) Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Horm Behav 49:215–222

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold A (1988) Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends—a meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychol Bull 104:226–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Feingold A (1992) Gender differences in mate selection preferences—a test of the parental investment model. Psychol Bull 112:125–139

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink B, Neave N, Seydel H (2007) Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women. Am J Hum Biol 19:82–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman-Gallant CR, Meguerdichian M, Wheelwright NT, Sollecito SV (2003) Social pairing and female mating fidelity predicted by restriction fragment length polymorphism similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in a songbird. Mol Ecol 12:3077–3083

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman-Gallant CR, Wheelwright NT, Meiklejohn KE, Sollecito SV (2006) Genetic similarity, extrapair paternity, and offspring quality in Savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Behav Ecol 17:952–958

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Garver-Apgar CE, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ (2007) Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. J Pers Soc Psychol 92:151–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Simpson JA (2000) The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 23:573–587

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ, Garver-Apgar CE, Christensen PN (2004) Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychol Sci 15:203–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (1998) Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 265:927–933

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (2003) Facial masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evol Hum Behav 24:231–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Garver-Apgar CE (2005a) Adaptations to ovulation—implications for sexual and social behavior. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 14:312–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Garver-Apgar CE (2005b) Women’s sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 272:2023–2027

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Yeo RA (1994) Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethol Sociobiol 15:73–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Garver-Apgar CE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Miller RD, Olp JJ (2006) Major histocompatibility complex alleles, sexual responsivity, and unfaithfulness in romantic couples. Psychol Sci 17:830–835

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grammer K, Fink B, Moller AP, Manning JT (2005) Physical attractiveness and health: comment on Weeden and Sabini. Psychol Bull 131:658–661

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grammer K, Fink B, Moller AP, Thornhill R (2003) Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev 78:385–407

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths RW, Kunz PR (1973) Assortative mating: a study of physiognomic homogamy. Soc Biol 20:448–453

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt AH, Harvey PH, Larson SG, Short RV (1981) Testis weight, body-weight and breeding system in primates. Nature 293:55–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton MG, Mortezaie M, Pillsworth EG, Bleske-Rechek A, Frederick DA (2007) Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: near ovulation, women dress to impress. Horm Behav 51:40–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick P, Loeschke V (1996) MHC and mate selection in humans? Trend Ecol Evol 11:24

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick PW, Black FL (1997) HLA and mate selection: no evidence in South Amerindians. Am J Hum Genet 61:505–511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz VB (1989) Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. J Soc Pers Rel 6:223–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes SM, Dispenza F, Gallup GG (2004) Ratings of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evol Hum Behav 25:295–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihara Y, Aoki K, Tokumaga K, Takahashi K, Juji T (2000) HLA and human mate choice: tests on Japanese couples. Anthropol Sci 108:199–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob S, McClintock MK, Zelano B, Ober C (2002) Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with women’s choice of male odor. Nat Genet 30:175–179

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston VS, Hagel R, Franklin M, Fink B, Grammer K (2001) Male facial attractiveness—evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evol Hum Behav 22:251–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd L, DeBruine LM, Feinberg DR, Law Smith MJ, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Perrett DI (2005a) 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd L, Feinberg DR, Cornwell RE, DeBruine LM, Roberts SC, Penton-Voak IS, Law-Smith MJ, Moore FR, Davis HP, Perrett DI (2005b) Women’s physical and psychological condition independently predict their preference for apparent health in faces. Evol Hum Behav 26:451–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones BC, Little AC, Burt DM, Perrett PI (2004a) When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception 33:569–576

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones BC, Little AC, Feinberg DR, Penton-Voak IS, Tiddeman BP, Perrett DI (2004b) The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 25:24–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones BC, Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2001) Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health—support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship. Evol Hum Behav 22:417–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan WC, Bruford MW (1998) New perspectives on mate choice and the MHC. Heredity 81:239–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Klindworth H, Voland E (1995) How did the Krummhorn elite males achieve above-average reproductive success. Human Nat 6:221–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler N, Rhodes G, Simmons LW (2002) Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely? Anim Behav 64:233–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler N, Simmons LW, Rhodes G (2004) How well does second-to-fourth-digit ratio in hands correlate with other indications of masculinity in males? Proc Roy Soc Lond B 271:S296–S298

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger DJ (2006) Male facial masculinity influences attributions of personality and reproductive strategy. Pers Rel 13:451–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry C, Garant D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L (2001) ‘Good genes as heterozygosity’: the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc Roy Soc Lond B 268:1279–1285

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallamm M, Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 126:390–423

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Little AC, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2001) Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 268:39–44

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Little AC, Jones BC, Burriss RP (2007) Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Horm Behav 51:633–639

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2002) Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269:1095–1100

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Little AC, Mannion H (2006) Viewing attractive or unattractive same-sex individuals changes self-rated attractiveness and face preferences in women. Anim Behav 72:981–987

    Google Scholar 

  • Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2003) Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans: partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour. Evol Hum Behav 24:43–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy CO (1981) The origin of man. Science 211:341–350

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maisey DS, Vale ELE, Cornelissen PL, Tovee MJ (1999) Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. Lancet 353:1500

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Manning JT (1995) Fluctuating asymmetry and bodyweight in men and women: implications for sexual selection. Ethol Sociobiol 16:145–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning JT, Pickup LJ (1998) Symmetry and performance in middle distance runners .Int J Sports Med 19:205–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe F (2000) Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behav Process 51:45–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Mays HLJ, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trend Ecol Evol 19:555–559

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland EE, Penn DJ, Potts WK (2003) Major histocompatibility complex heterozygote superiority during coinfection. Infect Immun 71:2079–2086

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock MK, Schumm P, Jacob S, Zelano B, Ober C (2002) The MHC and body odors: arbitrary effects caused by shifts of mean pleasantness—reply. Nat Genet 31:237–238

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Møller A, Swaddle J (1997) Developmental stability and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave N, Laing S, Fink B, Manning JT (2003) Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone and perceived male dominance. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 270:2167–2172

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2005) Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:19–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nettle D (2002) Height and reproductive success in a cohort of British men. Human Nat 13:473–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Ober C, Hauck WW, Kostyu DD, O’Brien E, Elias S, Simpson JL, Martin AO (1985) Adverse effects of human leukocyte antigen-DR sharing on fertility: a cohort study in a human isolate. Fertil Steril 44:227–232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ober C, Hyslop T, Elias S, Weitkamp LR, Hauck WW (1988) Human leukocyte antigen matching and fetal loss: results of a 10 year prospective study. Hum Reprod 13:33–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Ober C, Weitkamp LR, Cox N, Dytch H, Kostyu D, Elias S (1997) HLA and mate choice in humans. Am J Hum Genet 61:497–504

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson M, Madsen T, Nordby J, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Wittsell H (2003) Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 270(Suppl):S254–S256

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski B, Dunbar RIM (1999) Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 266:281–285

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski B, Dunbar RIM, Lipowicz A (2000) Evolutionary fitness—tall men have more reproductive success. Nature 403:156–156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am Nat 153:145–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak IS, Jacobson A, Trivers R (2004) Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evol Hum Behav 25:355–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak IS, Jones BC, Little AC, Baker S, Tiddeman B, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2001) Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 268:1617–1623

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Jones BC, Burt DM, Tiddeman BP, Perrett DI (2003) Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 117:264–271

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak IS, Perrett D, Pierce J (1999a) Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in attractiveness judgements. Curr Psychol 18:104–117

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, Minamisawa R (1999b) Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399:741–742

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R (1999) Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 20:295–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak IS, Rowland DR, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S (1998) Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394:884–887

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S (1994) Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature 368:239–242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petrie M (1994) Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371:598–599

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pillsworth EG, Haselton MG (2006) Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evol Hum Behav 27:247–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts WK, Manning CJ, Wakeland EK (1991) Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature 352:619–621

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Puts DA (2005) Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evol Hum Behav 26:388–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts DA, Gaulin SJC, Verdolini K (2006) Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evol Hum Behav 27:283–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes G (2006) The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Ann Rev Psychol 57:199–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes G, Chan J, Zebrowitz LA, Simmons LW (2003) Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proc Roy Soc Lond B 270(Suppl):S93–S95

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes G, Hickford C, Jeffery L (2000) Sex-typicality and attractiveness: are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive. Brit J Psychol 91:125–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes G, Proffitt F, Grady JM, Sumich A (1998) Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonom Bull Rev 5:659–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Rikowski A, Grammer K (1999) Human body odour, symmetry and attractiveness. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 266:869–874

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts SC, Gosling LM (2003) Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nat Genet 35:103–106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts SC, Hale ML, Petrie M (2006) Correlations between heterozygosity and measures of genetic similarity: implications for understanding mate choice. J Evol Biol 19:558–569

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts SC, Havlicek J, Flegr J, Hruskova M, Little AC, Jones BC, Perrett DI, Petrie M (2004) Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 271(Suppl):S270–S272

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts SC, Little AC, Gosling LM, Jones BC, Perrett DI, Carter V, Petrie M (2005a) MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans. Biol Lett 1:400–403

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts SC, Little AC, Gosling LM, Perrett DI, Carter V, Jones BC, Penton-Voak I, Petrie M (2005b) MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 26:213–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Roney JR, Maestripieri D (2004) Relative digit lengths predict men’s behavior and attractiveness during social interactions with women. Human Nat 15:271–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg LT, Cooperman D, Payne R (1983) HLA and mate selection. Immunogen 17:89–93

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Santos PSC, Schinemann JA, Gabardo J, Bicalho MD (2005) New evidence that the MHC influences odor perception in humans: a study with 58 Southern Brazilian students. Horm Behav 47:384–388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton TK, Caryl PG, Roberts SC (2006) Vocal and facial attractiveness judgments of children, adolescents and adults: the ontogeny of mate choice. Ethology 112:1179–1185

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (1999) Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues to good genes. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 266:1913–1917

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sear R (2006) Height and reproductive success—how a Gambian population compares with the west. Human Nat 17:405–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford TK, Schmitt DP, Buss DM (2005) Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Pers Indiv Diff 39:447–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh D, Bronstad PM (2001) Female body odour is a potential cue to ovulation. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 268:797–801

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trend Cog Sci 3:452–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Gangestad SW, Miller R, Scheyd G, McCullough JK, Franklin M (2003) Major histocompatibility genes, symmetry and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behav Ecol 14:668–678

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursz MR, Thomas HC, Greenwood BM, Hill AV (1997) Heterozygote advantage for HLA class-II type in hepatitis B virus infection. Nat Genet 17:11–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vollrath F, Milinski M (1996) Fragrant genes help Damenwahl. Trend Ecol Evol 307–308

  • Wade TJ, Shanley A, Imm M (2004) Second to fourth digit ratios and individual differences in women’s self-perceived attractiveness, self-esteem, and body-esteem. Pers Indiv Diff 37:799–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind C (2002) The MHC and body odors: arbitrary effects caused by shifts of mean pleasantness. Nat Genet 31:237

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind C, Furi S (1997) Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc Roy Soc Lond B 264:1471–1479

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind C, Seebeck T (1996) MHC and mate selection in humans? Reply. Trend Ecol Evol 11:24–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 260:245–249

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (2006) The intensity of human body odors and the MHC: should we expect a link? Evol Psychol 4:85–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi M, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Bard J, Thomas L, Boyse EA (1981) Distinctive urinary odors governed by the major histocompatibility locus of the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:5817–5820

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, Abbott J, Boyse J, Zayas ZA, Thomas L (1976) Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J Exp Med 144:1324–1335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zaidel DW, Aarde SM, Baig K (2005) Appearance of symmetry, beauty, and health in human faces. Brain Cogn 57:261–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We have benefited from discussions over recent years with a number of colleagues, particularly Lisa DeBruine, David Feinberg, Morris Gosling, Jan Havlicek, Ben Jones, Marie Hale, Ian Penton-Voak, David Perrett, Marion Petrie and Tamsin Saxton, to all of whom we express profound gratitude. ACL is currently supported by the Royal Society.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Crown St, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK

    S. Craig Roberts

  2. School of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK

    Anthony C. Little

Authors
  1. S. Craig Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony C. Little
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Craig Roberts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roberts, S.C., Little, A.C. Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetica 132, 309–321 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-007-9174-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-007-9174-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation