Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Observations of Sexual Dimorphism

  • Peter J. Marshall
  • Ryan Capiron
  • Darren BurkeEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1400-1

Synonyms

Definition

Sexual dimorphism is the term used to describe when the two sexes of a species possess physical characteristics that differ from each other. These physical characteristics can include differences in height, weight, color, decoration, and pattern and can even include body parts unique to one sex or behaviors such as birdsong.

Introduction

Evolutionary psychologists are interested in human sexual dimorphism (the observation that men and women tend to have different physical qualities), and whether it constitutes an evolved signal of some kind. There is a large body of evidence that this is the case for nonhuman animals, for example, the peacock’s tail which signals mate quality to the peahen; and the antlers of some deer species which signal to rivals the dominance of the deer. This chapter will report some of the evidence suggesting...

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

References

  1. Burke, D., & Sulikowski, D. (2010). A new viewpoint on the evolution of sexually dimorphic human faces. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(23), 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Foo, Y. Z., Nakagawa, S., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2017). The effects of sex hormones on immune function: A meta-analysis. Biological Reviews, 92(1), 551–571.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gallup, A. C., & Fink, B. (2018). Handgrip strength as a Darwinian fitness indicator in men. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 439.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00439.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34(1), 523–548.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 393–408.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harris, J. A., Rushton, J. P., Hampson, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1996). Salivary testosterone and self report aggressive and pro social personality characteristics in men and women. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 321–331.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:5<321::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-M.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, B., Hahn, A., Fisher, C., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han, C., … DeBruine, L. (2017). Women’s preferences for facial masculinity are not related to their hormonal status. BioRxiv Preprint, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1101/136549.
  9. Kung, W. C. (2003). Androgen and bone mass in men. Asian Journal of Andrology, 5, 148–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Laidre, M. E., & Johnstone, R. A. (2013). Animal signals. Current Biology, 23(18), 829–833.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Law Smith, M., Perrett, D., Jones, B., Cornwell, R., Moore, F., Feinberg, D., … Hillier, S. (2006). Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1583), 135–140.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lincoln, G. A. (1972). The role of antlers in the behaviour of red deer. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 182(2), 233–249.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1401820208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malyon, C., & Healy, S. (1994). Fluctuating asymmetry in antlers of fallow deer, Dama dama, indicates dominance. Animal Behaviour, 48(1), 248–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature (1st ed.). New York: Anchor Books.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2001.103.4.1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moller, A. P., & Petrie, M. (2002). Condition dependence, multiple sexual signals, and immunocompetence in peacocks. Behavioral Ecology, 13(2), 248–253.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/13.2.248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(1529), 2167–2172.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Pélabon, C., & Joly, P. (2000). What, if anything, does visual asymmetry in fallow deer antlers reveal? Animal Behaviour, 59(1), 193–199.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Penton-Voak, I. S., Jacobson, A., & Trivers, R. (2004). Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 355–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petrie, M., Halliday, T., & Sanders, C. (1991). Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Animal Behaviour, 41(2), 323–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80484-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trivers, R. (1972). Paternal investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  22. Windhager, S., Schaefer, K., & Fink, B. (2011). Geometric morphometrics of male facial shape in relation to physical strength and perceived attractiveness, dominance, and masculinity. American Journal of Human Biology, 23(6), 805–814.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.21219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection – a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zaidi, A. A., White, J. D., Mattern, B. C., Liebowitz, C. R., Puts, D. A., Claes, P., & Shriver, M. D. (2018). Facial masculinity does not appear to be a condition-dependent male ornament in humans and does not reflect MHC heterozygosity. BioRxiv, 322255.  https://doi.org/10.1101/322255.
  25. Zeh, D., & Zeh, J. (1988). Condition-dependent sex ornaments and field tests of sexual-selection theory. The American Naturalist, 132(3), 455–459.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08920759609362304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Marshall
    • 1
  • Ryan Capiron
    • 1
  • Darren Burke
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of NewcastleOurimbahAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Douglas Sellers
    • 1
  1. 1.Penn State Worthington ScrantonScrantonUSA