Identifying reproductive opportunities and intrasexual rivals has necessitated the evolution of sensitivity to features diagnostic of mate value. In determining the presence of good genes through physical features, individuals may additionally infer targets’ short- and long-term mating orientations. This study tested how individuals perceive men’s and women’s orientations through physical features conducive to reproductive goals. Participants evaluated mating orientations of male and female targets varying in size of sex-typical features (i.e., muscles or breasts) and adiposity. Greater adiposity connoted long-term mating orientations. Large muscles and breasts connoted short-term mating orientations. We frame results from an affordance management framework with respect to inferences regarding parental investment and intrasexual competition.
AntarJ. C.StephenI. D. (2021). Facial shape provides a valid cue to sociosexuality in men but not women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(4), 361–370. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.02.001
2.
BrownM.DonahoeS.BoykinK. (2021a). Physical strength as a cue to men’s capability as protective parents. Preprint available at PsyArXiv.
3.
BrownM.KeeferL. A.SaccoD. F. (2020). Relational insecurity heightens sensitivity to limbal rings in partnered women. Personal Relationships, 27(1), 61–75. http://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12308
4.
BrownM.KeeferL. A.SaccoD. F.BrownF. L. (in press). Demonstrate values: Behavioral displays of moral outrage as a cue to long-term mate potential. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000955
5.
BrownM.SaccoD. F. (2018). Put a (limbal) ring on it: Women perceive men’s limbal rings as a health cue in short-term mating domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(1), 80–91. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733072
6.
BrownM.SaccoD. F. (2019). Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 957–976. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517749331
7.
BrownM.SaccoD. F.BoykinK.DreaK. M.MacchioneA. L. (2021b). Inferences of parental ability through facial and bodily features. In Weekes-ShackelfordV. A.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and parenting (pp. 453–467). : Oxford University Press.
8.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204
9.
DixsonB. J.BrooksR. C. (2013). The role of facial hair in women’s perceptions of men's attractiveness, health, masculinity and parenting abilities. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 236–241. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.02.003
10.
DixsonB. J.DuncanM.DixsonA. F. (2015). The role of breast size and areolar pigmentation in perceptions of women’s sexual attractiveness, reproductive health, sexual maturity, maternal nurturing abilities, and age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(6), 1685–1695. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0516-2
11.
DixsonB. J.LittleA. C.DixsonH. G.BrooksR. C. (2017). Do prevailing environmental factors influence human preferences for facial morphology?Behavioral Ecology, 28(5), 1217–1227. http://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx067
12.
DixsonB. J.SherlockJ. M.CornwellW. K.KasumovicM. M. (2018). Contest competition and men’s facial hair: beards may not provide advantages in combat. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 147–153. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.11.004
13.
DixsonB. J.VaseyP. L.SagataK.SibandaN.LinklaterW. L.DixsonA. F. (2011). Men’s preferences for women’s breast morphology in New Zealand, Samoa, and Papua New Guinea. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1271–1279. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9680-6
14.
FrederickD. A.HaseltonM. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1167–1183. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303022
15.
GallupA. C.WhiteD. D.GallupG. G.Jr (2007). Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 423–429. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.07.001
16.
GrayP. B.FrederickD. A. (2012). Body image and body type preferences in St. Kitts, Caribbean: A cross-cultural comparison with US samples regarding attitudes towards muscularity, body fat, and breast size. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(3), 631–655. http://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000319
17.
GrayP. B.KahlenbergS. M.BarrettE. S.LipsonS. F.EllisonP. T. (2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 193–201. http://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00101-5
18.
HaseltonM. G.BussD. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81–91. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.81
19.
KościńskiK.MakarewiczR.BartoszewiczZ. (2020). Stereotypical and actual associations of breast size with mating-relevant traits. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 821–836. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1464-z
20.
KremsJ. A.NeubergS. L. (2021). Updating long-held assumptions about fat stigma: For women, body shape plays a critical role. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 70–82. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550621991381
21.
LeiX.PerrettD. (2021). Misperceptions of opposite‐sex preferences for thinness and muscularity. British Journal of Psychology, 112(1), 247–264. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12451
22.
LukasD.Clutton-BrockT. (2012). Cooperative breeding and monogamy in mammalian societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1736), 2151–2156. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2468
23.
LukaszewskiA. W.RoneyJ. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 409–421. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210397209
24.
SaccoD. F.HolifieldK.DreaK.BrownM.MacchioneA. (2020). Dad and mom bods? Inferences of parenting ability from bodily cues. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6(3), 207–214. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-020-00229-x
25.
SngO.WilliamsK. E.NeubergS. L. (2020). Sex-age stereotyping: Social perceivers as lay adaptationists. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(2), 136–149. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.12.001
26.
TinlinR. M.WatkinsC. D.WellingL. L.DeBruineL. M.Al-DujailiE. A.JonesB. C. (2013). Perceived facial adiposity conveys information about women’s health. British Journal of Psychology, 104(2), 235–248. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02117.x
27.
WilliamsK. E.SngO.NeubergS. L. (2016). Ecology-driven stereotypes override race stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(2), 310–315. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519401113
28.
ZebrowitzL. A.MontepareJ. (2006). The ecological approach to person perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. In SchallerM.SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.). Evolution and social psychology (pp. 81–113). Psychosocial Press.
29.
ZelazniewiczA. M.PawlowskiB. (2011). Female breast size attractiveness for men as a function of sociosexual orientation (restricted vs. unrestricted). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1129–1135. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9850-1
30.
ZilioliS.PonziD.HenryA.KubickiK.NickelsN.WilsonM. C.MaestripieriD. (2016). Interest in babies negatively predicts testosterone responses to sexual visual stimuli among heterosexual young men. Psychological Science, 27(1), 114-118.
