43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Studies of women's preferences for male faces have variously reported preferences for masculine faces, preferences for feminine faces and no effect of masculinity–femininity on male facial attractiveness. It has been suggested that these apparently inconsistent findings are, at least partly, due to differences in the methods used to manipulate the masculinity of face images or individual differences in attraction to facial cues associated with youth. Here, however, we show that women's preferences for masculinity manipulated in male faces using techniques similar to the three most widely used methods are positively inter-related. We also show that women's preferences for masculine male faces are positively related to ratings of the masculinity of their actual partner and their ideal partner. Correlations with partner masculinity were independent of real and ideal partner age, which were not associated with facial masculinity preference. Collectively, these findings suggest that variability among studies in their findings for women's masculinity preferences reflects individual differences in attraction to masculinity rather than differences in the methods used to manufacture stimuli, and are important for the interpretation of previous and future studies of facial masculinity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty.

          What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. A critical review and meta-analyses indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures. Theorists have proposed that face preferences may be adaptations for mate choice because attractive traits signal important aspects of mate quality, such as health. Others have argued that they may simply be by-products of the way brains process information. Although often presented as alternatives, I argue that both kinds of selection pressures may have shaped our perceptions of facial beauty.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                Proc. R. Soc. B.
                The Royal Society
                0962-8452
                1471-2954
                June 07 2006
                February 28 2006
                June 07 2006
                : 273
                : 1592
                : 1355-1360
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Psychology, University of St AndrewsSt Andrews KY16 9AJ, UK
                [2 ]School of Psychology, University of AberdeenAberdeen AB24 2UB, UK
                [3 ]School of Biological Sciences, University of LiverpoolCrown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK
                [4 ]Department of Psychology, University of DurhamSouth Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
                [5 ]Department of Experimental Psychology, University of BristolBristol BS8 1TN, UK
                [6 ]Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster UniversityHamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
                [7 ]Institute of Psychology, Humboldt UniversityRudower Chaussee 18, 12489 Berlin, Germany
                [8 ]International Max Planck Research School LIFE, Max Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentLentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany
                [9 ]Department of Psychology, Harvard UniversityBoston, MA 02115-1613, USA
                [10 ]School of Computer Science, University of St AndrewsSt Andrews KY16 9SX, UK
                Article
                10.1098/rspb.2005.3445
                1560296
                16777723
                572e0196-cecf-40da-bbb3-e90b9a57b757
                © 2006

                https://royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content122

                Cited by68

                Most referenced authors284