Applying sexual selection theory to language, it can be assumed that high verbal proficiency increases attractiveness, but male more than female attractiveness, because women have higher costs regarding reproduction and are thus more selective in mate choice. These predictions were tested experimentally. In the first study, videos were used as the stimuli for opposite-sex participants where an actor/actress performed verbal self-presentations. The content was alike but was delivered with three levels of verbal proficiency with respect to lexical, grammatical, and fluency features. The main effect of verbal proficiency on attractiveness was supported, but the interaction effect was not supported between verbal proficiency and sex according to which male more than female attractiveness is affected by verbal proficiency. In the second study, only audio tracks from the videos were used. Both effects were significant, supporting the assertion that language plays a significant role in mate choice, especially for male attractiveness.
BatemanJ. (1948). Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349-368.
2.
BradacJ. J.WisegarverR. (1984). Ascribed status, lexical diversity, and accent: Determinants of perceived status, solidarity, and control of speech style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 239-255.
3.
BratkoD. (1996). Twin study of verbal and spatial abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 621-624.
4.
BrownD. E. (1991). Human universals. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
5.
BrownG. R.LalandK. N.MulderM. B. (2009). Bateman’s principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 297-304. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005
6.
BurlingR. (2005). The talking ape: How language evolved. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
8.
BussD. M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
BussD. M.SchmittD. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
10.
ChomskyN. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
11.
DarwinC. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London, England: John Murray.
12.
DarwinC. R. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London, England: John Murray.
13.
DunbarR. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. London, England: Faber & Faber.
14.
FeingoldA. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 128-139.
15.
FisherR. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
16.
GarbeC. (2002). Geschlechterspezifische Zugänge zum fiktionalen Lesen [Sex-specific approaches to fictional reading]. In BonfadelliH.BucherP. (Eds.), Lesen in der Mediengesellschaft, Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung [Reading in the media society, current state and perspectives of research] (p. 215-234). Zurich, Switzerland: Pestalozzianum.
17.
GouldS. J. (1987, October). The limits of adaptation: Is language a spandrel of the human brain?Paper presented at the Cognitive Science Seminar, Cambridge, MA.
18.
GriskeviciusV.CialdiniR. B.KenrickD. T. (2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 63-76.
19.
HauserM. D.ChomskyN.FitchW. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science, 298, 1569-1579.
20.
JenkinsL. (2000). Biolinguistics: Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KanazawaS. (2008). Mating intelligence and general intelligence as independent constructs. In GeherG.MillerG. F. (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 283-309). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
22.
KemperS.SumnerA. (2001). The structure of verbal abilities in young and older adults. Psychology & Aging, 16, 312-322.
23.
LangeB. P. (2008). Kommunikative Dimensionen sexueller Selektion [Communicative dimensions of sexual selection] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.
24.
LangeB. P. (2011). Male proneness to verbal display production. Acta Linguistica, 5, 97-104.
25.
LangeB. P.EulerH. A. (2014). Writers have groupies, too: High-quality literature production and mating success. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 20-30. doi:10.1037/h0097246.
26.
LangeB. P.SchwarzS.EulerH. A. (2013). The sexual nature of human culture. The Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture, 4, 76-85.
27.
LiebermanP. (2000). Human language and our reptilian brain. The subcortical bases of speech, syntax, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LockeJ. L.BoginB. (2006). Language and life history: A new perspective on the development and evolution of human language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 259-280.
29.
LuoL.LukG.BialystokE. (2010). Effect of language proficiency and executive control on verbal fluency performance in bilinguals. Cognition, 114, 29-41.
30.
MillerG. F. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution. In CrawfordC.KrebsD. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
MillerG. F. (1999). Sexual selection for cultural displays. In DunbarR.KnightC.PowerC. (Eds.), The evolution of culture. An interdisciplinary view (pp. 71-91). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
32.
MillerG. F. (2000). The mating mind. How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York, NY: Doubleday.
33.
MillerG. F. (2002). How did language evolve? In SwainH. (Ed.), Big questions in science (pp. 79-90). London, England: Jonathan Cape.
34.
MillerG. F.ToddP. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190-198.
35.
NippoldM. A.Ward-LonerganJ. M.FanningJ. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125-138.
36.
OksenbergL.ColemanL.CannellC. F. (1986). Interviewers’ voices and refusal rates in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 97-111.
37.
PinkerS. (1994). The language instinct. New York, NY: Morrow.
38.
PinkerS. (2003). An adaptation to the cognitive niche. In ChristiansenM. H.KirbyS. (Eds.), Language evolution (pp. 16-37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
PinkerS.BloomP. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707-784.
40.
PlominR.DeFriesJ. C.McClearnG. E.McGuffinP. (2001). Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
RosenbergJ.TunneyR. J. (2008). Human vocabulary use as display. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 538-549.
43.
SchwarzS.HassebrauckM. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447-466.
44.
StrandS.DearyI. J.SmithP. (2006). Sex differences in cognitive ability test scores: A UK national picture. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 463-480.
45.
StromswoldK. (2001). The heritability of language: A review and metaanalysis of twin, adoption, and linkage studies. Language, 77, 647-723.
46.
StromswoldK. (2005). Genetic specificity of linguistic heritability. In CutlerA. (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 121-140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47.
SugiyamaL. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In BussD. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292-343). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
48.
TriversR. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In CampbellB. B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
49.
WechslerD. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
50.
WilliamsG. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
ZahaviA. (1975). Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205-214.
52.
ZahaviA.ZahaviA. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
ZhangJ.SaltuklarogluT.HoughM.KalinowskiJ. (2009). Jobs, sex, love and lifestyle: When nonstutterers assume the role of stutterers. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 61, 18-23.
