Literature DB >> 25246593

Human preferences for sexually dimorphic faces may be evolutionarily novel.

Isabel M Scott1, Andrew P Clark1, Steven C Josephson2, Adam H Boyette3, Innes C Cuthill4, Ruby L Fried5, Mhairi A Gibson6, Barry S Hewlett3, Mark Jamieson7, William Jankowiak8, P Lynne Honey9, Zejun Huang10, Melissa A Liebert5, Benjamin G Purzycki11, John H Shaver11, J Josh Snodgrass5, Richard Sosis11, Lawrence S Sugiyama5, Viren Swami12, Douglas W Yu13, Yangke Zhao10, Ian S Penton-Voak14.   

Abstract

A large literature proposes that preferences for exaggerated sex typicality in human faces (masculinity/femininity) reflect a long evolutionary history of sexual and social selection. This proposal implies that dimorphism was important to judgments of attractiveness and personality in ancestral environments. It is difficult to evaluate, however, because most available data come from large-scale, industrialized, urban populations. Here, we report the results for 12 populations with very diverse levels of economic development. Surprisingly, preferences for exaggerated sex-specific traits are only found in the novel, highly developed environments. Similarly, perceptions that masculine males look aggressive increase strongly with development and, specifically, urbanization. These data challenge the hypothesis that facial dimorphism was an important ancestral signal of heritable mate value. One possibility is that highly developed environments provide novel opportunities to discern relationships between facial traits and behavior by exposing individuals to large numbers of unfamiliar faces, revealing patterns too subtle to detect with smaller samples.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aggression; cross-cultural; evolution; facial attractiveness; stereotyping

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25246593      PMCID: PMC4210032          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1409643111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  26 in total

1.  National income inequality predicts women's preferences for masculinized faces better than health does.

Authors:  Robert Brooks; Isabel M Scott; Alexei A Maklakov; Michael M Kasumovic; Andrew P Clark; Ian S Penton-Voak
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences.

Authors:  Benedict C Jones; Lisa M DeBruine; David I Perrett; Anthony C Little; David R Feinberg; Miriam J Law Smith
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2008-02

3.  Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations.

Authors:  D Jones; K Hill
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  1993-09

4.  Testosterone levels among Aché hunter-gatherer men : A functional interpretation of population variation among adult males.

Authors:  R G Bribiescas
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  1996-06

Review 5.  Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research.

Authors:  Anthony C Little; Benedict C Jones; Lisa M DeBruine
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face.

Authors:  Janine Willis; Alexander Todorov
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-07

Review 7.  A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences.

Authors:  Wendy Wood; Alice H Eagly
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 8.  Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis.

Authors:  John Archer
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2005-02-25       Impact factor: 8.989

9.  Hormonal patterns in infertile women with a deficient postcoital test.

Authors:  F J Roumen; W H Doesburg; R Rolland
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Do men's faces really signal heritable immunocompetence?

Authors:  Isabel M L Scott; Andrew P Clark; Lynda G Boothroyd; Ian S Penton-Voak
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 2.671

View more
  30 in total

1.  Broadening horizons: Sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science.

Authors:  Michael D Gurven
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Psychobiological Responses Reveal Audiovisual Noise Differentially Challenges Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Bonnie Brown; Kelsey Mankel; Caitlin Nelms Price
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  A meta-analysis of the association between male dimorphism and fitness outcomes in humans.

Authors:  Linda H Lidborg; Catharine Penelope Cross; Lynda G Boothroyd
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 8.713

4.  Sexual selection on male vocal fundamental frequency in humans and other anthropoids.

Authors:  David A Puts; Alexander K Hill; Drew H Bailey; Robert S Walker; Drew Rendall; John R Wheatley; Lisa L M Welling; Khytam Dawood; Rodrigo Cárdenas; Robert P Burriss; Nina G Jablonski; Mark D Shriver; Daniel Weiss; Adriano R Lameira; Coren L Apicella; Michael J Owren; Claudia Barelli; Mary E Glenn; Gabriel Ramos-Fernandez
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Effects of Male Facial Masculinity on Perceived Attractiveness.

Authors:  Omid Ekrami; Peter Claes; Mark D Shriver; Seth M Weinberg; Mary L Marazita; Susan Walsh; Stefan Van Dongen
Journal:  Adapt Human Behav Physiol       Date:  2020-11-12

6.  Aww: The Emotion of Perceiving Cuteness.

Authors:  Ralf C Buckley
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-11-10

7.  Modeling individual preferences reveals that face beauty is not universally perceived across cultures.

Authors:  Jiayu Zhan; Meng Liu; Oliver G B Garrod; Christoph Daube; Robin A A Ince; Rachael E Jack; Philippe G Schyns
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  Replication, Communication, and the Population Dynamics of Scientific Discovery.

Authors:  Richard McElreath; Paul E Smaldino
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Facial Width-To-Height Ratio (fWHR) Is Not Associated with Adolescent Testosterone Levels.

Authors:  Carolyn R Hodges-Simeon; Katherine N Hanson Sobraske; Theodore Samore; Michael Gurven; Steven J C Gaulin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Experimental evidence for convergent evolution of maternal care heuristics in industrialized and small-scale populations.

Authors:  Geoff Kushnick; Ben Hanowell; Jun-Hong Kim; Banrida Langstieh; Vittorio Magnano; Katalin Oláh
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 2.963

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.