Attractiveness in flux: female preferences for male facial motion depend on mating context and non-additive cues to prosociality and proceptivity

Andrew P. Clark, V. Jack, Ed Morrison, I. Penton-Voak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Like facial structure, facial motion is a rich source of information for potential mates, but its relevance may vary across contexts. Perceived flirtatiousness (i.e. proceptivity) may offer information to females about various benefits offered by males, both direct and indirect, and may be weighted more heavily in a short-term mating context. However, proceptivity may interact with other desirable qualities. Prosocial tendencies (i.e. kindness) may offer direct benefits to potential mates and may effectively supersede proceptivity in a long-term mating context. We showed women wire-frame animations of shape-standardized male faces purportedly reporting statements that were either prosocial or antisocial. We asked participants to rate the animated faces for attractiveness in both long- and short-term mating contexts. We also asked a separate group of women to rate the perceived flirtatiousness of the animations. As expected, women prefer stimuli paired with prosocial statements. The weight placed on proceptive properties of the stimuli varied across conditions. Proceptivity predicted participants’ ratings more strongly for short-term judgments and when paired with antisocial statements, but proceptivity did not predict attractiveness when paired with prosocial statements. The results indicate that the information value of proceptive content is context-dependent and combines non-additively with other mating relevant information.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)99-109
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Evolutionary Psychology
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2009

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Attractiveness in flux: female preferences for male facial motion depend on mating context and non-additive cues to prosociality and proceptivity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this