Literature DB >> 21343440

Heterosexual romantic couples mate assortatively for facial symmetry, but not masculinity.

Robert P Burriss1, S Craig Roberts, Lisa L M Welling, David A Puts, Anthony C Little.   

Abstract

Preferences for partners with symmetric and sex-typical faces are well documented and considered evidence for the good-genes theory of mate choice. However, it is unclear whether preferences for these traits drive the real-world selection of mates. In two samples of young heterosexual couples from the United Kingdom (Study 1) and the United States (Study 2), the authors found assortment for facial symmetry but not for sex typicality or independently rated attractiveness. Within-couple similarity in these traits did not predict relationship duration or quality, although female attractiveness and relationship duration were negatively correlated among couples in which the woman was the more attractive partner. The authors conclude that humans may mate assortatively on facial symmetry, but this remains just one of the many physical and nonphysical traits to which people likely attend when forming romantic partnerships. This is also the first evidence that preferences for symmetry transfer from the laboratory to a real-world setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21343440     DOI: 10.1177/0146167211399584

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull        ISSN: 0146-1672


  9 in total

1.  Sexual dimorphism in multiple aspects of 3D facial symmetry and asymmetry defined by spatially dense geometric morphometrics.

Authors:  Peter Claes; Mark Walters; Mark D Shriver; David Puts; Greg Gibson; John Clement; Gareth Baynam; Geert Verbeke; Dirk Vandermeulen; Paul Suetens
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 2.  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

3.  Consistency of Eye Coloration Across Different Relationship Partners.

Authors:  Amy V Newman; Thomas V Pollet; Kristofor McCarty; Nick Neave; Tamsin K Saxton
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2022-10-19

4.  How well do men's faces and voices index mate quality and dominance?

Authors:  Leslie M Doll; Alexander K Hill; Michelle A Rotella; Rodrigo A Cárdenas; Lisa L M Welling; John R Wheatley; David A Puts
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2014-06

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.  Human preferences for symmetry: subjective experience, cognitive conflict and cortical brain activity.

Authors:  David W Evans; Patrick T Orr; Steven M Lazar; Daniel Breton; Jennifer Gerard; David H Ledbetter; Kathleen Janosco; Jessica Dotts; Holly Batchelder
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The morphometrics of "masculinity" in human faces.

Authors:  Philipp Mitteroecker; Sonja Windhager; Gerd B Müller; Katrin Schaefer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Preference for Male Facial Masculinity as a Function of Mental Rotation Ability in Gay and Bisexual Men, but Not in Heterosexual Men and Women in China.

Authors:  Lijun Zheng
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-10-25

9.  Revisiting facial resemblance in couples.

Authors:  Yetta Kwailing Wong; Wing Wah Wong; Kelvin F H Lui; Alan C-N Wong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.