Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-9
Variation in Women’s Preferences Regarding Male Facial Masculinity Is Better Explained by Genetic Differences Than by Previously Identified Context-Dependent Effects
Women’s preferences for masculine versus feminine male faces are highly variable. According to a dominant theory in evolutionary psychology, this variability results from adaptations that optimize preferences by calibrating them to certain contextual factors, including women’s self-perceived attractiveness, short- versus long-term relationship orientation, pathogen disgust sensitivity, and stage of the menstrual cycle. The theory does not account for the possible contribution of genetic variation on women’s facial masculinity preference. Using a large sample (N = 2,160) of identical and nonidentical female Finnish twins and their siblings, we showed that the proportion of variation in women’s preferences regarding male facial masculinity that was attributable to genetic variation (38%) dwarfed the variation due to the combined effect of contextual factors (< 1%). These findings cast doubt on the importance of these context-dependent effects and may suggest a need for refocusing in the field toward understanding the wide genetic variation in these preferences and how this variation relates to the evolution of sexual dimorphism in faces.
BensonP. J.PerrettD. I. (1993). Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception, 22, 257–262.
2.
BokerS.NealeM.MaesH.WildeM.SpiegelM.BrickT.. . . FoxJ. (2011). OpenMx: An open source extended structural equation modeling framework. Psychometrika, 76, 306–317. doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9200-6
3.
BrandesJ. (2006). The influence of estrogen on migraine: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1824–1830. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1824
4.
BrooksR.ScottI. M.MaklakovA. A.KasumovicM. M.ClarkA. P.Penton-VoakI. S. (2010). National income inequality predicts women’s preferences for masculinized faces better than health does. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 810–812. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0964
5.
BurtM. D.KentridgeR. W.GoodJ. M. M.PerrettD. I.TiddemanB. P.BoothroydL. G. (2007). Q-cgi: New techniques to assess variation in perception applied to facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2779–2784. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1037
6.
DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C.CrawfordJ. R.WellingL. L. M.LittleA. C. (2010). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 2405–2410. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2184
7.
DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C.LittleA. C.CrawfordJ. R.WellingL. L. M. (2011). Further evidence for regional variation in women’s masculinity preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 813–814. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2200
8.
DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C.TyburJ. M.LiebermanD.GriskeviciusV. (2010). Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not by moral or sexual disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 69–74. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.003
EbnerN. C.RiedigerM.LindenbergerU. (2010). FACES—A database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and validation. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 351–362. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.1.351
11.
FisherR. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
12.
FullerR. C.HouleD.TravisJ. (2005). Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. American Naturalist, 166, 437–446.
13.
GildersleeveK.HaseltonM. G.FalesM. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1205–1259. doi:10.1037/a0035438
14.
HarrisC. R. (2011). Menstrual cycle and facial preferences reconsidered. Sex Roles, 64, 669–681. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9772-8
15.
JohanssonA.JernP.SanttilaP.von der PahlenB.ErikssonE.WestbergL.. . . SandnabbaN. K. (2013). The Genetics of Sexuality and Aggression (GSA) twin samples in Finland. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16, 150–156. doi:10.1017/thg.2012.108
16.
KellerM. C.MedlandS. E.DuncanL. E. (2010). Are extended twin family designs worth the trouble? A comparison of the bias, precision, and accuracy of parameters estimated in four twin family models. Behavior Genetics, 40, 377–393. doi:10.1007/s10519-009-9320-x
17.
KiesnerJ. (2011). One woman’s low is another woman’s high: Paradoxical effects of the menstrual cycle. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 68–76. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.06.007
18.
LandeR. (1981). Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 78, 3721–3725. doi:10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721
19.
LeeA. J.DubbsS. L.KellyA. J.von HippelW.BrooksR. C.ZietschB. P. (2013). Human facial attributes, but not perceived intelligence, are used as cues of health and resource provision potential. Behavioral Ecology, 24, 779–787. doi:10.1093/beheco/ars199
20.
LeeA. J.MitchemD. G.WrightM. J.MartinN. G.KellerM. C.ZietschB. P. (2014). Genetic factors that increase male facial masculinity decrease facial attractiveness of female relatives. Psychological Science, 25, 476–484. doi:10.1177/0956797613510724
21.
LeeA. J.ZietschB. P. (2015). Women’s pathogen disgust predicting preference for facial masculinity may be specific to age and study design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 249–255. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.12.001
22.
LittleA. C.BurtD. M.Penton-VoakI. S.PerrettD. I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268, 39–44.
23.
LittleA. C.CohenD. L.JonesB. C.BelskyJ. (2007). Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 967–973. doi:10.1007/s00265-006-0325-7
24.
LittleA. C.DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C. (2011). Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2032–2039. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1925
25.
LittleA. C.JonesB. C.DeBruineL. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1638–1659. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0404
26.
LittleA. C.JonesB. C.Penton-VoakI. S.BurtD. M.PerrettD. I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1095–1100. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1984
27.
LukaszewskiA. W.RoneyJ. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 409–421. doi:10.1177/0146167210397209
28.
Mäki-TanilaA.HillW. G. (2014). Influence of gene interaction on complex trait variation with multi-locus models. Genetics, 198, 355–367. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165282
29.
MooreF. R.CoetzeeV.Contreras-GarduñoJ.DebruineL. M.KleisnerK.KramsI.. . . SuzukiT. N. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for cues to sex- and stress-hormones in the male face. Biology Letters, 9(3), Article 0050. Retrieved from http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/3/20130050
30.
Muñoz-ReyesJ. A.Iglesias-JuliosM.Martín-ElolaC.Losada-PerezM.MonederoI.PitaM.TuriéganoE. (2014). Changes in preference for male faces during the menstrual cycle in a Spanish population. Anales de Psicología, 30, 667–675. doi:10.6018/analesps.30.2.145221
31.
NealeM. C.CardonL. R. (1992). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
32.
Penton-VoakI. S.PerrettD. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39–48. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00033-1
PerrettD. I.LeeK. J.Penton-VoakI.RowlandD.YoshikawaS.BurtD. M.. . . AkamatsuS. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.
35.
PosthumaD.BeemA. L.de GeusE. J. C.van BaalG. C. M.von HjelmborgJ. B.LachineI.BoomsmaD. I. (2003). Theory and practice in quantitative genetics. Twin Research, 6, 361–376.
36.
RobertsS. C.LittleA. C. (2008). Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetica, 132, 309–321. doi:10.1007/s10709-007-9174-1
37.
ScottI. M.ClarkA. P.JosephsonS. C.BoyetteA. H.CuthillI. C.FriedR. L.. . . Penton-VoakI. S. (2014). Human preferences for sexually dimorphic faces may be evolutionarily novel. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 14388–14393. doi:10.1073/pnas.1409643111
38.
ScottI. M. L.ClarkA. P.BoothroydL. G.Penton-VoakI. S. (2013). Do men’s faces really signal heritable immunocompetence?Behavioral Ecology, 24, 579–589. doi:10.1093/beheco/ars092
39.
SimpsonJ. A.GangestadS. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.
40.
TyburJ. M.LiebermanD.GriskeviciusV. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103–122. doi:10.1037/a0015474
WaynforthD.DelwadiaS.CammM. (2005). The influence of women’s mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 409–416. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.03.003
43.
WilcoxA. J.DunsonD. B.WeinbergC. R.TrussellJ.BairdD. D. (2001). Likelihood of conception with a single act of intercourse: Providing benchmark rates for assessment of post-coital contraceptives. Contraception, 63, 211–215. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00191-3
44.
WoodW.KresselL.JoshiP. D.LouieB. (2014). Meta-analysis of menstrual cycle effects on women’s mate preferences. Emotion Review, 6, 229–249. doi:10.1177/1754073914523073
45.
ZietschB. P.VerweijK. J. H.BurriA. V. (2012). Heritability of preferences for multiple cues of mate quality in humans. Evolution, 66, 1762–1772.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
