Cited by 172Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFace Recognition and Perception

Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces

Open access
Little, Anthony C., DeBruine, Lisa M., Jones, Benedict C.·2011·Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences

Abstract

Evolutionary approaches to human attractiveness have documented several traits that are proposed to be attractive across individuals and cultures, although both cross-individual and cross-cultural variations are also often found. Previous studies show that parasite prevalence and mortality/health are related to cultural variation in preferences for attractive traits. Visual experience of pathogen cues may mediate such variable preferences. Here we showed individuals slideshows of images with cues to low and high pathogen prevalence and measured their visual preferences for face traits. We found that both men and women moderated their preferences for facial masculinity and symmetry according to recent experience of visual cues to environmental pathogens. Change in preferences was seen mainly for opposite-sex faces, with women preferring more masculine and more symmetric male faces and men preferring more feminine and more symmetric female faces after exposure to pathogen cues than when not exposed to such cues. Cues to environmental pathogens had no significant effects on preferences for same-sex faces. These data complement studies of cross-cultural differences in preferences by suggesting a mechanism for variation in mate preferences. Similar visual experience could lead to within-cultural agreement and differing visual experience could lead to cross-cultural variation. Overall, our data demonstrate that preferences can be strategically flexible according to recent visual experience with pathogen cues. Given that cues to pathogens may signal an increase in contagion/mortality risk, it may be adaptive to shift visual preferences in favour of proposed good-gene markers in environments where such cues are more evident.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2010.1925

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This relationship is consistent with a wide range of additional evidence indicating that individuals are sensitive to disease-connoting cues within their immediate environment, and respond to these cues with functionally adaptive shifts in cognition and behavior.

    “This relationship is consistent with a wide range of additional evidence indicating that individuals are sensitive to disease-connoting cues within their immediate environment, and respond to these cues with functionally adaptive shifts in cognition and behavior [58], [59].”
  • Viewing cues to disease salience increased preferences for facial cues of long-term health in potential mates, but not same-sex individuals.

    “we have also found that viewing cues to disease salience increased preferences for facial cues of long-term health in potential mates, but not same-sex individuals (Little et al. 2011).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Little, Anthony C.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
Published
2010-12
Volume
278
Issue
1714
Pages
2032-2039
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2136596950
Cited by
172
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (acceptedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
parasite prevalence, mate preferences, facial masculinity, facial symmetry, facial attractiveness, visual experience, cross-cultural variation, mate choice, evolutionary psychology
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Communicable Diseases, Cues, Face, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sexual Behavior, Sex Characteristics, Visual Perception, Young Adult, Femininity, Masculinity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review