Literature DB >> 20199563

Mate choice and human stature: homogamy as a unified framework for understanding mating preferences.

Alexandre Courtiol1, Michel Raymond, Bernard Godelle, Jean-Baptiste Ferdy.   

Abstract

Assortative mating for human height has long attracted interest in evolutionary biology, and the phenomenon has been demonstrated in numerous human populations. It is often argued that mating preferences generate this pattern, but other processes can also induce trait correlations between mates. Here, we present a methodology tailored to quantify continuous preferences based on choice experiments between pairs of stimuli. In particular, it is possible to explore determinants of interindividual variations in preferences, such as the height of the chooser. We collected data from a sample of 200 individuals from France. Measurements obtained show that the perception of attractiveness depends on both the height of the stimuli and the stature of the individual who judged them. Therefore, this study demonstrates that homogamy is present at the level of preferences for both sexes. We also show that measurements of the function describing this homogamy are concordant with several distinct mating rules proposed in the literature. In addition, the quantitative approach introduced here fulfills metrics that can be used to compare groups of individuals. In particular, our results reveal an important disagreement between sexes regarding height preferences in the context of mutual mate choice. Finally, both women and men prefer individuals who are significantly taller than average. All major findings are confirmed by a reanalysis of previously published data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20199563     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00985.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  21 in total

1.  Intralocus sexual conflict over human height.

Authors:  Gert Stulp; Bram Kuijper; Abraham P Buunk; Thomas V Pollet; Simon Verhulst
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men's bodily attractiveness.

Authors:  Aaron Sell; Aaron W Lukazsweski; Michael Townsley
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Why do we pick similar mates, or do we?

Authors:  Thomas M M Versluys; Ewan O Flintham; Alex Mas-Sandoval; Vincent Savolainen
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  From preferred to actual mate characteristics: the case of human body shape.

Authors:  Alexandre Courtiol; Sandrine Picq; Bernard Godelle; Michel Raymond; Jean-Baptiste Ferdy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness.

Authors:  Brian S Mautz; Bob B M Wong; Richard A Peters; Michael D Jennions
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Does natural selection favour taller stature among the tallest people on earth?

Authors:  Gert Stulp; Louise Barrett; Felix C Tropf; Melinda Mills
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Evidence for genetic variation in human mate preferences for sexually dimorphic physical traits.

Authors:  Karin J H Verweij; Andrea V Burri; Brendan P Zietsch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evidence to suggest that teeth act as human ornament displays signalling mate quality.

Authors:  Colin A Hendrie; Gayle Brewer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The genetic correlation between height and IQ: shared genes or assortative mating?

Authors:  Matthew C Keller; Christine E Garver-Apgar; Margaret J Wright; Nicholas G Martin; Robin P Corley; Michael C Stallings; John K Hewitt; Brendan P Zietsch
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Are human mating preferences with respect to height reflected in actual pairings?

Authors:  Gert Stulp; Abraham P Buunk; Thomas V Pollet; Daniel Nettle; Simon Verhulst
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.