Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:18:50.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Women’s Preferences: Precopulatory Adaptations

from Part I - Precopulatory Adaptations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Donald F. Sacco ,
Mitch Brown ,
Kaitlyn Boykin ,
Alicia L. Macchione ,
Kelsey M. Drea  and
Mary M. Medlin
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on women’s preferences in mate selection, which have evolved as a suite of adaptations designed to solve women’s problems associated with reproduction. We first summarize basic differences in women’s reproductive rate and metabolic costs associated with reproduction that have shaped women’s mating preferences. We then summarize women’s short-term-mating preferences, designed primarily to identify mates who possess “good genes” cues that would ensure healthy offspring, followed by a summary of women’s long-term mating preferences, designed primarily to identify mates capable and interested in investing in women and offspring. We discuss how women’s ovulatory cycle, in which conception risk varies across their monthly cycle, modulates women’s mating preferences, particularly short-term mating preferences. This is followed by a summary of how environmental factors, such as the presence of resources or threatening conspecifics, modulate women’s mating preferences, indicating the context-sensitivity of women’s preferences. Finally, we discuss how individual differences in women’s personality traits further modulate short-term and long-term mating preferences.

Keywords

Mating preferencesOvulationShort-term MatingLong-term MatingPersonality
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 3 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, S. E., & Maner, J. K. (2019). Pathogen avoidance mechanisms affect women’s preference for symmetrical male faces. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13, 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Sex differences in disgust: Why are women more easily disgusted than men? Emotion Review, 10, 149–160.Google Scholar
Anderson, R., & Klofstad, C. A. (2012). For love or money? The influence of personal resources and environmental resource pressures on human mate preferences. Ethology, 118, 841–849.Google Scholar
Arnocky, S., Piché, T., Albert, G., Ouellette, D., & Barclay, P. (2017). Altruism predicts mating success in humans. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 416–435.Google Scholar
Arslan, R. C., Schilling, K. M., Gerlach, T. M., & Penke, L. (2021). Using 26,000 diary entries to show ovulatory changes in sexual desire and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121, 410–431.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2010). Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 123–135.Google Scholar
Bhasin, S. (2004). Testosterone supplementation and aging-associated sarcopenia. In Chanson, P., Epelbaum, J., Lamberts, S., & Christen, Y. (Eds.), Endocrine aspects of successful aging: Genes, hormones and lifestyles (pp. 175–190). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bleske-Rechek, A., Remiker, M. W., Swanson, M. R., & Zeug, N. M. (2006). Women more than men attend to indicators of good character: Two experimental demonstrations. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 248–261.Google Scholar
Booth, A., & Dabbs, J. M. Jr. (1993). Testosterone and men’s marriages. Social Forces, 72(2), 463–477.Google Scholar
Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borras-Guevara, M. L., Batres, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2017). Aggressor or protector? Experiences and perceptions of violence predict preferences for masculinity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 481–489.Google Scholar
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107–136.Google Scholar
Bressan, P., & Stranieri, D. (2008). The best men are (not always) already taken: Female preference for single versus attached males depends on conception risk. Psychological Science, 19, 145–151.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Keefer, L. A., & Sacco, D. F. (2020). Relational insecurity heightens sensitivity to limbal rings in partnered women. Personal Relationships, 27, 61–75.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Keefer, L. A., Sacco, D., & Brown, F. L. (2021). Demonstrate values: Behavioral displays of moral outrage as a cue to long-term mate potential. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000955/Google Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2016). Avoiding extraverts: Pathogen concern downregulates preferences for extraverted faces. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 278–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2017). Unrestricted sociosexuality predicts preferences for extraverted male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. 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, 80–91.Google Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2019). Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 957–976.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Sacco, D. F., & Medlin, M. M. (2019a). Women’s short-term mating goals elicit avoidance of faces whose eyes lack limbal rings. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13, 278–285.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Sacco, D. F., & Medlin, M. M. (2019b). Sociosexual attitudes differentially predict men and women’s preferences for agreeable male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 248–251.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Westrich, B., Bates, F., Twibell, A., & McGrath, R. E. (2020). Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110249.Google Scholar
Buchanan, K. L., Evans, M. R., Goldsmith, A. R., Bryant, D. M., & Rowe, L. V. (2001). Testosterone influences basal metabolic rate in male house sparrows: A new cost of dominance signaling? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1474), 1337–1344.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82, 238–249.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., … & Ekehammar, B. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.Google Scholar
Buss, D., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caryl, P. G., Bean, J. E., Smallwood, E. B., Barron, J. C., Tully, L., & Allerhand, M. (2009). Women’s preferences for male pupil-size: Effects of contraception risk, sociosexuality and relationship status. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 503–508.Google Scholar
Cavallotti, C., & Cerulli, L. (2008). Age-related changes of the human eye. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: Men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide. Science, 242, 519–524.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L. M., & Little, A. 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 of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 277, 2405–2410.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L., Jones, B., Tybur, J., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not moral or sexual disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 69–74.Google Scholar
Dinh, T., Pinsof, D., Gangestad, S. W., & Haselton, M. G. (2017). Cycling on the fast track: Ovulatory shifts in sexual motivation as a proximate mechanism for regulating life history strategies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 685–694.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., & Brooks, R. 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, 236–241.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Kennedy-Costantini, S., Lee, A. J., & Nelson, N. L. (2019). Mothers are sensitive to men’s beards as a potential cue of paternal investment. Hormones and Behavior, 113, 55–66.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Rantala, M. J., Melo, E. F., & Brooks, R. C. (2017). Beards and the big city: Displays of masculinity may be amplified under crowded conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 259–264.Google Scholar
Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Czarna, A. Z., & Denissen, J. J. (2013). Are narcissists sexy? Zeroing in on the effect of narcissism on short-term mate appeal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 870–882.Google Scholar
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M., & Li, N. P. (2012). Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 292–305.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20, 204–268.Google Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A., & Crockett, M. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 772–787.Google Scholar
Fan, J. T., Dai, W., Liu, F., & Wu, J. (2005). Visual perception of male body attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 272, 219–226.Google Scholar
Farrelly, D. (2013). Altruism as an indicator of good parenting quality in long-term relationships: Further investigations using the mate preferences towards altruistic traits scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 395–398.Google Scholar
Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists attract. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, C., & Simpson, J. (2017). Women’s mate preferences. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 8546–8553). New York, NY: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist, 139, 603–622.Google Scholar
Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183.Google Scholar
Gallup, A. C., White, D. D., & Gallup, G. G. (2007). Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 423–429.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Frederick, M. J., & Pipitone, R. N. (2008). Morphology and behavior: Phrenology revisited. Review of General Psychology, 12, 297–304.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 89–96.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Dinh, T. (2020). Robust evidence for moderation of ovulatory shifts by partner attractiveness in Arslan et al.’s (2020) data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(2), 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000305Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Dinh, T., Grebe, N. M., Del Giudice, M., & Thompson, M. E. (2019). Psychological cycle shifts redux, once again: Response to Stern et al., Roney, Jones et al., and Higham. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 537–542.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151–163.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 265, 927–933.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Facial masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 231–241.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73–85.Google Scholar
Garza, R., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2019). Fertility status in visual processing of men’s attractiveness. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 328–342.Google Scholar
Garza, R., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2021). Effects of women’s short-term mating orientation and self-perceived attractiveness in rating and viewing men’s waist to chest ratios. Archives of Sexual behavior, 50, 543–551.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1205–1259.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of women’s desires and men’s mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 509–518.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature, 17, 50–73.Google Scholar
Havlicek, J., Roberts, S. C., & Flegr, J. (2005). Women’s preference for dominant male odour: Effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters, 256–259.Google Scholar
Holden, C. J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2014). Personality features and mate retention strategies: Honesty–humility and the willingness to manipulate, deceive, and exploit romantic partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 31–36.Google Scholar
Ilicic, J., Baxter, S. M., & Kulczynski, A. (2016). White eyes are the window to the pure soul: Metaphorical association and overgeneralization effects for spokespeople with limbal rings. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33, 840–855.Google Scholar
Johnson, L., Petty, C. S., & Neaves, W. B. (1983). Further quantification of human spermatogenesis: Germ cell loss during postprophase of meiosis and its relationship to daily sperm production. Biology of Reproduction, 29, 207–215.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 606–610.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1697–1711.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Madson, L. (2012). It is not all about the Benjamins: Understanding preferences for mates with resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 306–310.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.Google Scholar
Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., Watkins, C. D., Fincher, C. L., Little, A. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2013). Pathogen disgust predicts women’s preferences for masculinity in men’s voices, faces, and bodies. Behavioral Ecology, 24, 373–379.Google Scholar
Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2019). Ovulation, sex hormones, and women’s mating psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 51–62.Google Scholar
Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han, C., … & O’Shea, K. J. (2018). No compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity track changes in women’s hormonal status. Psychological Science, 29, 996–1005.Google Scholar
Jünger, J., Kordsmeyer, T. L., Gerlach, T. M., & Penke, L. (2018). Fertile women evaluate male bodies as more attractive, regardless of masculinity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 412–423.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969.Google Scholar
Khaw, K. T., & Barrett-Connor, E. (1992). Lower endogenous androgens predict central adiposity in men. Annals of Epidemiology, 2, 675–682.Google Scholar
Kiessling, A. (2005). Eggs alone. Nature, 434, 145.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, H., & Kohshima, S. (2001). Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive meaning: Comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye. Journal of Human Evolution, 40, 419–435.Google Scholar
Lambert, S. M., Masson, P., & Fisch, H. (2006). The male biological clock. World Journal of Urology, 24(6), 611–617.Google Scholar
Larson, C. M., Haselton, M. G., Gildersleeve, K. A., & Pillsworth, E. G. (2013). Changes in women’s feelings about their romantic relationships across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 68, 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, C. M., Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2012). Ovulatory shifts in women’s attractions to primary partners and other men: Further evidence of the importance of primary partner sexual attractiveness. PLoS One, 7, e44456.Google Scholar
Lee, A. J., & Zietsch, B. P. (2011). Experimental evidence that women’s mate preferences are directly influenced by cues of pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity. Biology Letters, 7, 892–895.Google Scholar
Lei, X., & Perrett, D. (2021). Misperceptions of opposite-sex preferences for thinness and muscularity. British Journal of Psychology, 112, 247–264.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K., Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 923–936.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Cohen, D. L., Jones, B. C., & Belsky, J. (2007). Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 967–973.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2032–2039.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2007). Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 633–639.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. 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 of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1095–1100.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W. (2013). Testing an adaptationist theory of trait covariation: Relative bargaining power as a common calibrator of an interpersonal syndrome. European Journal of Personality, 27, 328–345.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2009). Estimated hormones predict women’s mate preferences for dominant personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 191–196.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 409–421.Google Scholar
Lustgraaf, C. J. N., & Sacco, D. F. (2015). Sociosexuality and relationship status interact to predict facial symmetry preferences. Human Ethology Bulletin, 30, 3–9.Google Scholar
Marcinkowska, U. M., Helle, S., & Lyons, M. T. (2015). Dark traits: Sometimes hot, and sometimes not? Female preferences for Dark Triad faces depend on sociosexuality and contraceptive use. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 369–373.Google Scholar
Marzoli, D., Moretto, F., Monti, A., Tocci, O., Roberts, S. C., & Tommasi, L. (2013). Environmental influences on mate preferences as assessed by a scenario manipulation. PLoS One, 8(9), e74282.Google Scholar
McGrath, R. E. (2021). Darwin meets Aristotle: Evolutionary evidence for three fundamental virtues. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16, 431–445.Google Scholar
McGrath, R. E., Greenberg, M. J., & Hall-Simmonds, A. (2018). Scarecrow, Tin Woodsman, and Cowardly Lion: The three-factor model of virtue. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 373–392.Google Scholar
McPherson, E., Banchefsky, S., & Park, B. (2018). Psychological consequences of the dad bod: Using biological and physical changes to increase essentialist perceptions of fathers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 330–336.Google Scholar
Medlin, M. M., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2018). That’s what she said! Perceived mate value of clean and dirty humor displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 192–200.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 97–125.Google Scholar
Morrison, E. R., Clark, A. P., Gralewski, L., Campbell, N., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2010). Women’s probability of conception is associated with their preferences for flirtatious but not masculine facial movement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1297–1304.Google Scholar
Murray, D. R., Jones, D. N., & Schaller, M. (2013). Perceived threat of infectious disease and its implications for sexual attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 103–108.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 363–373.Google Scholar
O’Connor, J. J., Jones, B. C., Fraccaro, P. J., Tigue, C. C., Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. R. (2014). Sociosexual attitudes and dyadic sexual desire independently predict women’s preferences for male vocal masculinity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1343–1353.Google Scholar
Oinonen, K. A., & Mazmanian, D. (2007). Facial symmetry detection ability changes across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology, 75, 136–145.Google Scholar
Oswald, F., Hughes, S., Champion, A., & Pedersen, C. L. (in press). In search of the appeal of the “DILF”. Psychology & Sexuality.Google Scholar
Parsons, P. A. (1992). Fluctuating asymmetry: A biological monitor of environmental and genomic stress. Heredity, 68, 361–364.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2005). Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected duration of relationship. Biological Psychology, 70, 38–43.Google Scholar
Penn, D. J. (2002). The scent of genetic compatibility: Sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology, 801, 1–2.Google Scholar
Penn, D. J., & Potts, W. K. (1999). The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility genes. The American Naturalist, 153, 145–164.Google Scholar
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 229–241.Google Scholar
Penton-Voak, I. S., Jacobson, A., & Trivers, R. (2004). Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 355–370.Google Scholar
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39–48.Google Scholar
Peshek, D., Semmaknejad, N., Hoffman, D., & Foley, P. (2011). Preliminary evidence that the limbal ring influences facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 137–146.Google Scholar
Pettijohn, T. F. II, & Tesser, A. (1999). Popularity in environmental context: Facial feature assessment of American movie actresses. Media Psychology, 1, 229–247.Google Scholar
Phillips, T., Barnard, C., Ferguson, E., & Reader, T. (2008). Do humans prefer altruistic mates? Testing a link between sexual selection and altruism towards non-relatives. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 555–572.Google Scholar
Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006a). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247–258.Google Scholar
Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006b). Women’s sexual strategies: The evolution of long-term bonds and extrapair sex. Annual Review of Sex Research, 17, 59–100.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pound, N., Lawson, D. W., Toma, A. M., Richmond, S., Zhurov, A. I., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2014). Facial fluctuating asymmetry is not associated with childhood ill-health in a large British cohort study. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B: Biological Sciences, 281, 20141639.Google Scholar
Provine, R. R., Cabrera, M. O., & Nave-Blodgett, J. (2013). Red, yellow, and super-white sclera. Human Nature, 24, 126–136.Google Scholar
Provost, M. P., Kormos, C., Kosakoski, G., & Quinsey, V. L. (2006). Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculinization and somatotype in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 305–312.Google Scholar
Provost, M. P., Troje, N. F., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Short-term mating strategies and attraction to masculinity in point-light walkers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 65–69.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388–397.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175.Google Scholar
Quist, M. C., Watkins, C. D., Smith, F. G., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2012). Sociosexuality predicts women’s preferences for symmetry in men’s faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1415–1421.Google Scholar
Reeve, S. D., Kelly, K. M., & Welling, L. L. M. (2016). Transitory environmental threat alters sexually dimorphic mate preferences and sexual strategy. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 101–113.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Chan, J., Zebrowitz, L. A., & Simmons, L. W. (2003). Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, S93–S95.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Morley, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2013). Women can judge sexual unfaithfulness from unfamiliar men’s faces. Biology Letters, 9, 20120908.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., & Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception, 30, 611–625.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Palermo, R., Simmons, L. W., Peters, M., Lee, K., … & Crawford, J. R. (2007). Perceived health contributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism. Perception, 36, 1244–1252.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Gosling, L. M., Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., Carter, V., … & Petrie, M. (2005a). MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans. Biology Letters, 400–403.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Gosling, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Carter, V., Jones, B. C., … & Petrie, M. (2005b). MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 213–226.Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2008). Women’s estradiol predicts preference for facial cues of men’s testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 53, 14–19.Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2016). Within-cycle fluctuations in progesterone negatively predict changes in both in-pair and extra-pair desire among partnered women. Hormones and Behavior, 81, 45–52.Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., Simmons, Z. L., & Gray, P. B. (2011). Changes in estradiol predict within-women shifts in attraction to facial cues of men’s testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 742–749.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., & Brown, M. (2018). The face of personality: Adaptive inferences from facial cues are moderated by perceiver personality and motives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12, e12410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., Lustgraaf, C. J., & Hugenberg, K. (2017). The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3, 125–132.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Holifield, K., Drea, K., Brown, M., & Macchione, A. L. (2020). Dad and mom bods? Inferences of parenting ability from bodily cues. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6, 207–214.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2012). The roles of sociosexual orientation and relationship status in women’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1044–1047.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Lustgraaf, C. N. J., Brown, M., & Young, S. G. (2015). Activation of self-protection threat increases women’s preferences for dominance in male faces. Human Ethology Bulletin, 4, 23–31.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Bernstein, M. J., & Hugenberg, K. (2012). Social exclusion and female mating behavior: Rejected women show strategic enhancement of short-term mating interest. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 573–587.Google Scholar
Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 212–221.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2002). A meta-analysis of sex differences in romantic attraction: Do rating contexts moderate tactic effectiveness judgments? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 387–402.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., & International Sexuality Description Project. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Big Five traits related to short-term mating: From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 246–282.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Hone, L. S., & Pound, N. (2012). The importance of physical strength to human males. Human Nature, 23, 30–44.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15073–15078.Google Scholar
Shoup, M. L., & Gallup, G. G. (2008). Men’s faces convey information about their bodies and their behavior: What you see is what you get. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 469–479.Google Scholar
Shyu, B. P., & Wyatt, H. J. (2009). Appearance of the human eye: Optical contributions to the “limbal ring”. Optometry and Vision Science, 86, E1069–E1077.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. K., Fessler, D. M., Tiokhin, L., Frederick, D. A., Lee, S. W., & Navarrete, C. D. (2011). Trade-offs in a dangerous world: Women’s fear of crime predicts preferences for aggressive and formidable mates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 127–137.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15, 425–444.Google Scholar
Soler, C., Nunez, M., Gutierrez, R., Nunez, J., Medina, P., Sancho, M., Alvarez, J., & Nunez, A. (2003). Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 199–207.Google Scholar
Stone, E. A., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Socioeconomic development and shifts in mate preferences. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 447–455.Google Scholar
Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Peacocks, porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 664–680.Google Scholar
Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2005). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image, 2, 383–393.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 131–144.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Waynforth, D., Delwadia, S., & Camm, M. (2005). The influence of women’s mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 409–416.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 260, 245–249.Google Scholar
Welling, L., DeBruine, L., Little, A., & Jones, B. (2009). Extraversion predicts individual differences in women’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 996–998.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, A. J., Gilani, S. Z., Shafait, F., Mian, A., Tan, D. W., Maybery, M. T., … & Eastwood, P. (2015). Prenatal testosterone exposure is related to sexually dimorphic facial morphology in adulthood. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 282, 20151351.Google Scholar
Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 918–929.Google Scholar
Wilcox, A. J., Dunson, D. B., Weinberg, C. R., Trussell, J., & Baird, D. D. (2001). Likelihood of conception with a single act of intercourse: Providing benchmark rates for assessment of post-coital contraceptives. Contraception, 63, 211–215.Google Scholar
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.Google Scholar
Young, S. G., Sacco, D. F., & Hugenberg, K. (2011). Vulnerability to disease is associated with a domain-specific preference for symmetrical faces relative to symmetrical non-face stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 558–563.Google Scholar
Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167–185.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×