Q: Can women perceive male genetic & paternal quality?
READING MEN’S FACES: WOMEN’S
MATE ATTRACTIVENESS JUDGMENTS
TRACK MEN’S TESTOSTERONE AND
INTEREST IN INFANTS
Introduction
Overview/about the study
Summary
 Female Perspective
 Mate attractiveness
 Genetic quality
 Paternal quality
 How to test???
 Genetic quality
 Testosterone
 Paternal quality
 “Affinity for children”
In this study:
 Male participants
 Completed interest in infants test
 Saliva samples
 Posed for digital photographs
 Female participants
 Rated photos
 5 Grad students
 Rated photos for expression neutrality
Previous Research
 Facial masculinity
 Honest signal of genetic quality?
 High testosterone only sustainable by healthier men
 Cue for paternal quality
 Preference for masculinity as a function of
menstrual cycle
 Masculinity morphing results
 Faces altered to look more masculine receive
lower ratings than unaltered faces on ‘quality as a
parent’ and ‘good father’ dimensions
Methods: Stimulus Photos
 51 University of Chicago male
 Paid $10
 39 straight, willing males
 Saliva sample
 Either a five minute conversation with a
female research assistant during a waiting
period or sat alone for five minutes. (part
of a larger study)
 Photos taken at a standard distance,
looking straight into the camera and
assume a neutral facial expression.
 Visual preference
 Interest in infants: pictures of infants and
adults were presented simultaneously in pairs
(20) and subjects chose preferred photo
Methods: Women Raters
 Women raters (N=29)
 UCSB undergrads, ages 18–20 (mean=18.41, s.d.=0.57)
 Ovals placed around mens’ faces
 Rating scale 1–7 scale for ‘likes children,’
‘masculine,’ ‘physically attractive,’ and ‘kind,’
compared to other men
 Rated attractiveness as a short-term romantic
partner and as a long-term romantic partner
 5 graduate students rated the faces of men 1-7
on how positive or negative their faces looked
RESULTS: WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS
 Correlation between men’s testosterone levels and
masculinity ratings (r=0.34, n=38, p=0.039).
 Women’s average ratings of how men like children were
significantly correlated with men’s scores on the interest
in infants test (r=0.38, n=39, p=0.017).
 Positivity of expression affects women’s judgment of
men’s liking of children and men’s actual interest in
infants, but not masculinity or testosterone.
 Masculinity rating significantly related to men’s
testosterone and age
 Testosterone (g=0.22, s.e.=0.03, t28= 7.01, p<0.001)
 Age (s.e.=0.03, t28=4.75, p<0.001).
RESULTS: INFANT INTEREST AND POSITIVE
EXPRESSION RATING
Long-Term Mate Attractiveness
 Long-term mate attractiveness--significant
effects:
 Men’s interest in infants predicted long-term
mate attractiveness (standardized b=0.35,
s.e.b.=0.16, p=0.033).
 ‘Likes children’ in isolation predicted longterm mate attractiveness (g=0.29, s.e.=0.04,
t28=6.76, p<0.001).
 Age (g=0.11, s.e.=0.03, t28=3.10, p<0.005)
(negative effect)
Short-Term Mate Attractiveness
 For short-term mate attractiveness
testosterone, infant interest, and age exerted
influence
 Testosterone (g=0.11, s.e.=0.04, t28=2.88, p=0.008)
 Interest in infants (g=0.10, s.e.=0.03, t28=3.15,
p=0.004)
 Age – negative influence (g=0.08, s.e.=0.03,
t28=K2.47, p=0.02).
 Masculinity in isolation predicted short-term
mate attractiveness (g=0.25, s.e.=0.05, t28=4.84,
p<0.001)
RESULTS: LTM VS. STM ATTRACTIVENESS
Results: PART ONE
 Suggests that women
track actual characteristics
that are important for
mate choice
 Perceived infant-liking
significantly correlated with
men’s interest in infants
 Masculinity ratings
significantly correlated with
men’s testosterone
concentrations
Do women weigh paternal quality
against genetic quality?
 Evidence women may of non-differential
attractiveness judgments that track
hormone concentrations and infant
affinity
 Testosterone and infant affinity were not
correlated; possibly independent
 Independent indices for tracking genetic and
paternal quality, not a single dimension
(testosterone).
Results: PART TWO
 Facial masculinity/femininty morph
 Facial neutrality/happiness morph
Conclusions
“Women appear to map facial cues of testosterone
onto masculinity judgments, and masculinity
judgments in turn positively influence STM
attractiveness. Likewise, facial cues of interest in
infants are mapped onto judgments of how much
men like children, and such judgments in turn
positively influence LTM attractiveness.”
“This overall pattern of results is consistent with the
existence of adaptations that read facial cues in the
service of facilitating adaptive mate choices.”