Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2405-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Domestic violence shapes Colombian women’s partner choices

Martha Lucia Borras-Guevara 1 & Carlota Batres 2 & David I. Perrett 1

Received: 27 June 2017 / Revised: 1 November 2017 / Accepted: 3 November 2017 / Published online: 19 November 2017
# The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication

Abstract domestic violence factor preferred significantly less masculine

Potential protection from violence has been suggested as an Colombian male faces. Even after controlling for participant
explanation for women’s preferences for more masculine part- age, education, access to media (TV and internet) and health-
ners. Previous studies, however, have not considered that vi- related factors, the domestic violence factor contributed sig-
olence may be multi-modal, and hence come from different nificantly to explaining masculinity preferences. The results
sources. Therefore, we tested the effect of different fears of presented here suggest that women’s preferences for mascu-
violence (i.e. vulnerability to public crime, likelihood of linity may be a strategy to avoid aggressive partners and that
within-partnership violence) on masculinity preferences of the source of violence matters in mate choice.
women from Colombia, a country known for its high rates
of violence. Eighty-three adult heterosexual women (mean Significance statement
age ± SD = 26.7 ± 6.01) answered a survey that included ques- Women who perceive higher risks of domestic violence prefer
tions about health (e.g. frequency of illnesses during the last less masculine looking partners. Using an experimental ap-
year and during childhood), access to media (e.g. time spent proach, we show that Colombian women who feel more in
watching television, frequency of internet use), education (i.e. danger of violence within partnership prefer the faces of less
highest level achieved) and violence perceptions. Participants’ masculine males. This was true even after controlling for
masculinity preferences for Salvadoran, European and women’s education level, health and access to media.
Colombian male faces were recorded. Factor analysis revealed
two different factors for the answers to questions related to Keywords Masculinity . Public violence . Domestic
violence. One factor loaded mostly on questions related to violence . Partner preferences . Intra-sexual selection
public violence and the second factor related to domestic vio-
lence. We found that women with higher scores on the
Introduction
Communicated by M. Raymond
Masculine male traits, across different taxa, are associated
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2405-2) contains supplementary
with genetic and physical traits which could be beneficial
material, which is available to authorized users. during sexual selection (Emlen 2008; Santos et al. 2011).
These traits include, but are not limited to, fighting ability
* Martha Lucia Borras-Guevara (Bergeron et al. 2010), higher dominance rank (Marty et al.
mlb22@st-andrews.ac.uk 2009), physical strength (Malo et al. 2009) and fertility
(Preston et al. 2003). In humans, the same pattern exists, with
1
Perception Lab, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, St Mary’s
masculinity correlating positively with quality (e.g.
Quad, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland KY16 reproductive success; Apicella et al. 2007), physical traits
9JP, UK (i.e. sexual dimorphism; Thornhill and Gangestad 2006) and
2
Present address: Psychology Department, Gettysburg College, 300 dominance (Batres et al. 2015) but also with negative person-
North Washington Street, Gettysburg, PA 17325, USA ality traits (e.g. infidelity; O’Connor et al. 2012).
175 Page 2 of 14 Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

Female mate selection and/or male-male competition are et al. 2010, 2011). Likewise, Penton-Voak et al. (2004) argued
possible driving forces behind preferences for masculinity that British women had a lower preference for masculine male
(Barber 1995; Puts 2009; Little et al. 2011a; Puts et al. faces than Jamaican women because Jamaica may have a
2012). Most research has focused on the role of female mate higher pathogen load. These studies attributed their results to
selection, both at the individual and population level (Rhodes masculinity being an honest indicator of health, which would
et al. 2003; Thornhill and Gangestad 2006; DeBruine et al. be more important to women in environments with a higher
2011; Rantala et al. 2013; Batres and Perrett 2014), whereas pathogen load. In contrast, Scott et al. (2014) found that wom-
little attention has been given to the influence of male-male en living in populations with a higher disease burden preferred
competition (Snyder et al. 2011; Batres and Perrett 2014; less masculine male partners and that urbanisation level was a
Batres et al. 2015). better predictor of masculinity preferences than any popula-
At the individual level (measures that vary within a popu- tion health measure. Moreover, other ecological variables
lation), masculine men report an increased preference for ca- have been shown to influence masculinity preferences. For
sual relationships (Rhodes et al. 2005; Boothroyd et al. 2008, example, media access had a significant effect on
2011), being more aggressive (Puts et al. 2012) and are per- Salvadorans masculinity preferences: people who had access
ceived by women as more likely of being unfaithful to the internet preferred more masculine male faces than peo-
(O’Connor et al. 2012) than their feminine counterparts. In ple who did not (Batres and Perrett 2014). Batres and Perrett
some cases, men’s masculinity has been argued to be an hon- (2014) suggest the media effect may arise from masculinity
est indicator of health. For example, Thornhill and Gangestad being portrayed in social media as an attractive physical trait.
(2006) found that self-reported frequency and duration of re- These studies are not consistent in showing that masculin-
spiratory diseases negatively correlated with men’s masculin- ity is preferred because it signals better health. Two main
ity. Likewise, masculinity positively correlated with medical possibilities could explain the discrepancies. First, male-
records of health and immune function response to a vaccine male competition may be an important factor that has been
(Rhodes et al. 2003; Rantala et al. 2012; but see Rantala et al. disregarded by researchers (Puts 2009). Second, variation in
2013). Nonetheless, measures of genetic quality (e.g. major masculinity preferences (Gangestad and Simpson 2000; Little
histocompatibility complex diversity) were found not to pre- et al. 2011a) could be a reflection of the trade-offs women face
dict facial masculinity in men (Lie, Rhodes and Simmons when choosing a masculine partner in different environments.
2008; see Scott et al. 2013 for a review). In terms of physical For example, when living in infection-prone environments,
traits such as strength (Fink et al. 2007) and formidability women may show a higher preference for traits related to
(Wolff and Puts 2010), these correlated positively with facial health (Tybur and Gangestad 2011; Little et al. 2011b) but,
ratings of masculinity in men. Snyder et al. (2011) found that in environments where access to resources is difficult, women
women who felt more vulnerable to crime preferred more may prefer more feminine partners as this trait is associated
formidable male partners, suggesting that women prefer mas- with being more cooperative (Little et al. 2007).
culine partners in environments where protection is needed On the other hand, when studies of women’s masculinity
(Snyder et al. 2011). All considered, studies at the individual preferences have focused on the effects of male-male compe-
level suggest that masculinity provides a clear cue to men’s tition, the results have been consistent at different levels of
personality and physicality but it is less clear that masculinity analysis. At the individual level, women who felt more vul-
provides an unambiguous cue to health. As a result, women nerable to violence from strangers preferred formidable male
choosing a masculine male partner face a dilemma between partners (Snyder et al. 2011). Additionally, women who felt
wanting a partner who is strong, formidable, perhaps healthier more at risk in public places preferred higher formidability
but less likely to commit to a long-term relationship or one and dominance in potential partners (Ryder et al. 2016).
who is weak, less formidable and healthy but more faithful. Furthermore, women who were primed with images of
At the population level, research on women’s masculinity male-male conflict preferred more masculine male faces than
preferences has focused on the association with aggregated women who were shown a neutral prime (Little et al. 2013; Li
indicators. Country-level measures of access to education, et al. 2014). This literature suggests that, if faced with an
media (internet use frequency), health (parasite load) and vi- antagonistic encounter, men who are more masculine,
olence (homicide rate, income inequality) have been studied formidable and dominant would be expected to be better
(e.g. Brooks et al. 2010; DeBruine et al. 2010, 2011; Batres equipped to win. At the population level, women living
and Perrett 2014). Reduced access to education for women in countries with higher income inequality, which is
leads to a preference for men with higher-resource acquisition associated with increased violence, showed higher pref-
power (which has been positively correlated to masculinity, erences for masculine male partners. Women’s masculin-
Kasser and Sharma 1999). Regarding health, women in coun- ity preferences were better predicted by income inequal-
tries or US states where health is better showed a lower facial ity than by a country’s health index (Brooks et al. 2010;
masculinity preference for potential male partners (DeBruine but see Debruine et al. 2011). These results have been
Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175 Page 3 of 14 175

explained in terms of women preferring men who are therefore a range of backgrounds. We include questions rele-
more able to defend themselves and their partners in vant to different types of violence to test empirically whether
environments where there is high risk of conflict concerns of different types of violence can be subsumed into a
(Brooks et al. 2010; Puts 2010). single construct or whether they can be differentiated into
It must be considered that a masculine (more aggres- distinct types of concern over public and domestic violence.
sive, dominant) partner increases a woman’s risk of be- If different fears are separable, then we predict that women’s
ing subjected to violence within the relationship as well. masculinity preferences will be higher when they perceive a
Women’s anger and disgust increase when shown im- higher risk of public violence due to the need for protection.
ages of men’s aggression towards women. This emo- This first prediction arises since masculinity is associated with
tional reaction triggered women’s preferences to switch strength and formidability (Fink et al. 2007; Wolff and Puts
away from masculine male voices and faces in potential 2010), traits that are desired in a partner by women who feel
partners (Li et al. 2014). Hence, when there is danger of more at risk in public places (Snyder et al. 2011; Ryder et al.
women being the target of aggressive behaviour, women 2016). We also predict lower masculinity preferences when
prefer less masculine characteristics. This lies in contrast women feel a higher risk of domestic violence since mascu-
to the priming of increased masculinity preferences linity has been related to men being perceived as dangerous to
when women were are shown men’s aggression towards their children, and being more aggressive, stronger and formi-
men (Li et al. 2014). Additionally, Colombian women dable (Fink et al. 2007; Wolff and Puts, 2010; Puts et al. 2012;
who agreed with the statement Bmen are dangerous to Borras-Guevara et al. 2017).
their children^ had low masculinity preferences for male As previous studies have shown that the ethnicity of
faces (Borras-Guevara et al. 2017). Following the trade- faces shown to participants influences face judgements,
off theory, the above literature suggests that the violence we predict that the influence of violence will be more
source coming either from strangers (public violence) or relevant for own-ethnicity (Colombian) facial stimuli.
from partners (domestic violence), could have different Stephen et al. (2012) showed that attractiveness ratings
effects on women’s masculinity preferences, since the were better predicted by colour with own-ethnicity faces.
types of violence could be associated with different Likewise, Borras-Guevara et al. (2017) found that
costs and benefits. A more dominant, masculine partner women’s masculinity preferences differed depending on
may be an asset when the source of violence comes the ethnicity of the face. Employing stimuli ethnically
from outside the household but could surely be a liabil- closer to participants may thus lead to more ecologically
ity if the violence comes from within the household. valid conclusions. Being able to compare masculinity
Field studies on the effect of violence on masculinity pref- preferences for three different face ethnicities (European,
erences have hinted at differential effects depending on the Salvadoran and Colombian) ranging in closeness to the
source of violence, either from strangers or from within part- participant population will enable us to differentiate
nership (Borras-Guevara et al. 2017). Priming research in the whether preferences are associated with the physical con-
laboratory has also suggested that women’s masculinity pref- struct of masculinity, independent of face ethnicity, or
erences are affected differently depending on the type of vio- reflect a more culturally specific construct of masculinity.
lence they are exposed to (Li et al. 2014). Our aim is to build We define closeness in terms of ethnicity descent and
from previous evidence to get to a better understanding of how geography. Colombia and El Salvador are both Hispanic
women’s masculinity preferences are affected by violence. countries separated by a distance of approximately
Questions related to violence used by Borras-Guevara et al. 1200 km compared to a distance of 9500 km between
(2017) were general; hence in the current study, we ask more Colombia and Europe. Concerning ancestry, Colombians
specific questions that relate to different types of violence. are descended mostly from a mix of Europeans,
Likewise, the results of Li et al. (2014), although valuable, Amerindians and Africans. By contrast, Salvadorans are
are limited as participants in this study were undergraduate, descended mostly from Europeans and Native Americans.
first world students, which means that the sample may not be We therefore predict that effects of violence will be most
representative of a general population (Henrich et al. 2010). evident for own-ethnicity faces and less apparent for
There is a need for both experimental and field studies. In other-ethnicity faces.
experimental studies, it is possible to isolate specific influ- For the past few decades, different researchers have debat-
ences yet the effects of priming may last minutes and may ed about what drives women’s masculinity preferences: either
not reflect the same processes that drive preferences outside female mate choice (DeBruine et al. 2010, 2011) or male-male
the laboratory. In societies with more violence, effects on competition (Puts 2009; Brooks et al. 2010). We hope that the
masculinity preferences may be more marked. current study will help clarify this issue. Our study attempts to
In the present study, we investigate masculinity preferences understand the effects of different sources of violence but
of Colombian women from both urban and rural areas and since previous studies have related women’s masculinity
175 Page 4 of 14 Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

preferences to their level of education, access to media and participants from urban (Colombia: Bogota and Medellin)
health, we will examine the effects of these predictors as well. and rural areas (Cajica and La Estrella) of Colombia. The
European images were taken from an open-access library
(3DSK).
Colombia as our field site The Colombian pictures (40 females, mean age ± SD =
25.4 ± 6.34; and 40 males, mean age ± SD = 24.33 ± 5.22)
Masculinity preferences have been mostly studied at the pop- were included since the study population was all Colombian.
ulation level in developed countries, like the UK or the USA, The Salvadoran pictures (40 females, mean age ± SD = 25.43
where people’s access to education, health and media is high. ± 4.64; and 40 males, mean age ± SD = 26.32 ± 5.32, see
We chose Colombia as it differs substantially from previously Batres and Perrett 2014 for details) were included as
studied populations. Colombia, a developing country, is Colombia and El Salvador are both Hispanic countries.
known for being one of the most dangerous places in the Salvadoran pictures therefore constitute an intermediate level
world, exhibiting very low indicators of economic growth of ethnic similarity to the study population. European pictures
and development. For example, in Colombia, the homicide (40 females, mean age ± SD = 23.04 ± 3.81; and 40 males,
rate was 30 times higher than in the UK in 2014. Likewise, mean age ± SD = 25.25 ± 4.64) were included to be able to
life expectancy is 7% shorter for Colombian than British compare masculinity preferences for an ethnically distant
women. If violence has an effect on women’s masculinity group.
preferences, Colombian women’s perceptions of violence in- All images used were taken under constant conditions of
crease the likelihood of finding these effects. Additionally, light and showed a neutral expression. Using Psychomorph
violence indicators in Colombia differ depending on the geo- (Version 6), we first delineated each image with 189 points
graphical area. For instance, there is variability in violence and aligned them to a standard inter-pupillary distance. Three
perceptions between rural and urban areas. Including urban original face images were averaged to make new composites
and rural participants not only increases the variability of vi- as these would be more representative of the source popula-
olence perceptions but also guarantees that our study is more tion than original images of individuals. Five composite im-
representative of the population, being mostly non-WEIRD ages were made for each gender of each ethnicity (Colombian,
(non-Western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic). Salvadoran and European). At the same time, all female and
Since online sampling in developing countries (like male faces were averaged separately to create gender proto-
Colombia) has been found to be unrepresentative (Batres types for each ethnicity (see Fig. 1). Subsequently, masculin-
and Perrett 2014), our participants were tested in person. ity transforms were made for each composite, by subtracting
(or adding) 50% of shape difference between the relevant
male and female prototypes (Tiddeman et al. 2001). This re-
Methods sulted in 15 pairs of faces, each consisting of a masculinised
and a feminised version of the same face (5 Colombian, 5
Participants

The sample consisted of Colombian women living in the two

major cities, Bogota and Medellin, and in two surrounding
small towns, Cota and La Estrella, respectively. Our total sam-
ple was 120 adult (older than 17 years) heterosexual women,
with 30 women from each location. Due to the fact that youn-
ger women (of reproductive age) are at higher risk of being the
targets of violence, we limited our analyses to women younger
than 41 years of age. This left a sample of 83 women (mean
age ± SD = 26.7 ± 6.01). In order to avoid participants’ bias,
blinded methods were used when collecting all data.

Stimuli used

For the purpose of comparing the effect of own-ethnicity ver-

sus other-ethnicity stimuli, three sets of face images were
Fig. 1 Anchor images (prototypes) for masculinity transforms. Bottom
used, one of European descent, one Salvadoran and one row—women’s facial averages: a Colombian, b Salvadoran and c
Colombian. Salvadoran images were from urban (El European. Second row—men’s facial averages: d Colombian, e
Salvador) and rural areas. Colombian images were of Salvadoran and f European
Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175 Page 5 of 14 175

Fig. 2 Example pairs of

European (left), Salvadoran
(middle) and Colombian (right)
male facial stimuli. The left of
each pair is 50% feminised and
the right is 50% masculinised in
shape

Salvadoran and 5 European). See Fig. 2 for an example of 6. Having your home or property vandalised.
each ethnicity (for method details, see Perrett et al. 1998). 7. Having someone break into your home whilst you or your
Each participant was presented with the 15 pairs of faces family are there.
one by one in random order but blocked by ethnicity. Each 8. Having someone break into your home whilst the inhab-
pair was shown in a printed laminated sheet. The left/right itants are away.
position of the masculinised face of the pair and the sheet
order between participants were randomised. An average was computed from the eight questions on vul-
Participation in this study consisted of two phases. In the nerability to public crime. In reference to violence within part-
first phase, participants’ masculinity preferences were nership, seven questions were asked: how likely is a woman/
assessed by showing them the 15 pairs of faces individually man to be the target of domestic violence in your area?, how
and asking which of the two faces (the right or the left) they vulnerable do men/women feel if they have a confrontation with
considered most attractive for each pair (Spanish translation: their partner?, how unsafe do men/women feel if they have a
BCual de las dos caras le parece mas atractiva?^). The second disagreement with their partner about something that really
phase consisted of completing an 82-question survey matters to them? and how much do they agree with the state-
(questions analysed here are shown in the Appendix). ment Bmen are dangerous to their children^. The three questions
Questions inquired about demographic details (age, gender, relating to domestic violence against women were averaged,
number of children, etc.), indicators of health, level of educa- and a new variable Bdomestic violence against women^ was
tion, access to media and perceptions of violence. created. The same was done for the three questions relating to
For education level, just one question was asked: BWhat is domestic violence against men to create a new variable
your highest level of education?^ Participants were given eight BDomestic violence against men^. All questions relating to vio-
options to choose from, ranging from no schooling (illiterate) to lence were asked in the abstract Bhow likely is a woman to be the
graduated from post-graduate studies. To determine the target of domestic violence in your area^, rather than
participants’ access to media, three questions were asked: personalising questions Bhow likely are you to be the target of
how much time was spent watching national TV, how much domestic violence^. This was done to avoid disclosure. All par-
time was spent watching cable TV and how frequently they ticipants were debriefed and given contact details for the local
used the internet. Concerning participants’ health, we asked police and priest in case they needed to make personal reports.
how frequently they were ill during their childhood, how many
times on average they had been ill over the past year and how Data availability All data generated or analysed during this
would they rate their health. Violence perceptions were study are included in this published article as supplementary
assessed by asking participants how much in danger from vio- material (Data_Behavioral_Ecology_submission_
lence they felt in the country, in the city/town, and how worried Colombia_data_set_3.sav).
they were when already in bed and realised they left the front
door unlocked. Additionally, participants were asked eight
questions on how vulnerable to public crime they felt. How Variables analysed
much do you worry about falling victim of the following crimes
on a regular basis? (1 being not at all–7 all the time) Dependent variable

1. Being attacked by a stranger in the street. Participants’ masculinity preferences were calculated as the
2. Being robbed or mugged in the street. percentage of faces high in masculinity that were selected as
3. Being harassed, threatened or verbally abused in the more attractive across the pairs. As we had three ethnicities in
street. our stimuli, we calculated a percentage masculinity preference
4. Being pick-pocketed. for each stimulus ethnicity: Colombian, European and
5. Having something stolen in a violent manner. Salvadoran.
175 Page 6 of 14 Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

Table 1 Correlation matrix for factors extracted from the questions factors explained 26.5 and 23.9% of the variance from the
related to violence (bold indicates variables that have a greater than 0.4
violence questions.
correlation value)

Indicators Factor and loadings Health factors

Public violence Domestic violence
Participants’ ratings of their health, the frequency of illnesses
Average violence against women 0.27 0.67 during the last year and during childhood were included in this
Average violence against men − 0.06 0.86 factor analysis. One factor was extracted (shown in Table 2),
Men dangerous to children 0.42 0.56 explaining 45.9% of the variance in the answers to these ques-
Average vulnerability 0.60 0.03 tions. Inclusion of other questions did not meet the assump-
Danger city/town 0.67 − 0.19 tions of the Kayser-Meyer-Olkin sample adequacy principle.
Danger country 0.65 − 0.35
Locking door 0.61 0.43 Media access

Only questions related to time spent watching national and

Independent variables cable TV were included in the factor analysis to meet the
Kayser-Meyer-Olking measure of sampling adequacy. One
Factor analysis factor was extracted, explaining 74% of the variance in an-
swers to these questions (Table 3). Internet frequency use was
When possible, factors were extracted from the violence, ed- included in the analysis as an additional binary variable with
ucation, development and health questions via principal com- low- and high-use categories.
ponent analysis. The factorability of the questions relating to
each indicator was evaluated via the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Education level
measure of adequacy (when greater or equal to 0.5, it was
accepted) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (accepted when The highest level of education was introduced in subsequent
p ≤ 0.05). All solutions were un-rotated and based on eigen- analyses on its own.
values greater than 1. All loadings are shown in Tables 1, 2
and 3. Scores were saved as new variables/factors.
Results

Violence factors A repeated-measures ANOVA was run, with masculinity pref-

erences for male faces as the dependent variable, face ethnicity
A total of 17 questions were asked in reference to perceived (i.e. European, Salvadoran or Colombian) as the within-
violence. These were reduced to seven variables once the an- subject factor and having children or not as a between-
swers to questions on vulnerability to public crime, domestic subjects factor. Along with age, the factors/variables described
violence against women and domestic violence against men in the previous section (i.e. domestic violence, public vio-
were separately averaged. An exploratory factor analysis of lence, illnesses, time spent watching TV, internet frequency
the seven variables revealed two factors. The first factor load- and education level) were included as covariates in this model.
ed mainly on questions related to public violence and the Residuals from this model (residual masculinity preferences
second one loaded mostly on questions relating to violence for European, Salvadoran and Colombian male faces) were all
within partnership and against children (see bold correlations normally distributed (all p > 0.099).
in Table 1). The first factor is referred to as public violence and The interaction between ethnicity of the stimuli used and
the second factor as domestic violence. Respectively, these internet frequency was marginally significant, F(2,83) =

Table 2 Correlation matrix for factors extracted from the questions

related to health Table 3 Correlation matrix for factor analysis for questions related to
TV access
Indicators Factor and loadings
Illnesses Indicators Factor and loadings
TV
Health rating − 0.76
Average illnesses reported for the last year 0.47 Time spent watching national TV 0.87
Frequency of illnesses during childhood 0.76 Time spent watching cable TV 0.87
Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175 Page 7 of 14 175

Fig. 3 Effect of internet frequency use on masculinity preferences (%)

for male faces of different ethnicities. Standard error bars are shown

3.001, p = 0.052, suggesting that masculinity preferences for

the three types of male faces differed depending on the amount
of internet used (Fig. 3). Participants’ masculinity preferences Fig. 4 Effect of domestic violence on women’s preferences for
for Colombian male faces were unaffected by internet fre- masculinity in Colombian male faces. Lines above show the least
quency (mean masculinity preference percentage for high in- squares trend line and 95% confidence intervals. Different colours
ternet frequency M = 55.0 and for low internet frequency M = indicate each participant. (Residual domestic violence plotted against
the unstandardised residuals of masculinity preference from the
52.0), whereas masculinity preferences for European and univariate model, controlling for age, children, health, TV access,
Salvadoran faces were higher with more frequent internet internet and public violence)
use (European: high internet frequency M = 62.5 and low in-
ternet frequency M = 51.1; Salvadoran: high internet frequen-
cy M = 43.7 and low internet frequency M = 49.3).
Face stimulus ethnicity did not interact with any other var- factor, all p > 0.11. Likewise, masculinity preferences for
iable (i.e. age, having children, time spent watching TV, edu- European faces were not affected either by domestic violence
cation level, public violence and illnesses factors; all (F(1,78) = 0.001, p = 0.98, β = 0.106, η2 = 0.000) or any other
p > 0.075). Additionally, none of the variables/factors had a variable/factor (i.e. having children, age, public violence, ill-
significant main effect on masculinity preferences (all nesses, time spent watching TV, internet frequency and edu-
p > 0.19). Due to the marginally significant interaction de- cation level; all p > 0.80).
scribed previously, subsequent univariate analyses were done
separately for each face ethnicity.
Discussion
Masculinity preferences for Colombian male faces
Our findings are in line with some of our predictions. First, we
reasoned that worries about violence might differentiate into
Domestic violence had a significant effect on women’s mas-
two types of concern: that for public violence and that for
culinity preferences for Colombian male faces (F(1,78) =
domestic violence. This separation was apparent in the factor
4.57, p = 0.036, β = − 5.96, η2 = 0.062). When women had
analysis of violence concerns. The results presented here in-
higher perceptions of risk for domestic violence in their sur-
dicate that women’s masculinity preferences for male faces are
roundings, their masculinity preferences were lower (Fig. 4).
influenced by their perceptions of danger from violence, and
No other factor/variable significantly predicted women’s mas-
that this influence depends on the source of violence. We did
culinity preferences (all p > 0.11).
not find support for our prediction that concerns about public
violence would be linked to a greater masculinity preference.
Masculinity preferences for Salvadoran or European male There was support for the prediction about domestic violence.
faces When women thought there was a higher likelihood of domes-
tic violence in their surroundings, they showed lower mascu-
Preferences for masculine male faces from El Salvador were linity preferences for male faces. Women’s masculinity pref-
not affected either by the domestic violence factor (F(1,78) = erences for male faces were also contingent on the ethnicity of
0.16, p = 0.69, β = − 1.2, η2 = 0.002) or any other variable/ the face stimuli shown to participants. There was a
175 Page 8 of 14 Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

significantly lower masculinity preference for Colombian (domestic violence). Additionally, in the laboratory, partici-
male faces when women felt there was a higher risk of domes- pants could be primed with different scenarios where public
tic violence. Even after controlling for participant’s age, hav- violence was high but domestic violence was low, and vice
ing children, illnesses, education, internet access frequency versa. Equating the nature of aggression in the two scenarios
and time spent watching TV, the effects of domestic violence might allow the relative impact that public and domestic vio-
remained significant. Moreover, domestic violence was the lence have on mate choice preferences to be compared. The
only variable that contributed significantly to explaining the dangers from public and domestic violence could also impact
variation in women’s masculinity preferences. on preferences for different mate characteristics (e.g.
formidability and intention; Lustgraaf et al. 2015).
Violence as a multi-modal factor

Most studies testing the effects of violence on mate The influence of violence on women’s masculinity
preferences, both at the population (Brooks et al. preferences
2010) and at the individual level (Snyder et al. 2011;
Li et al. 2014; Borras-Guevara et al. 2017), have stud- Being more aggressive, stronger, dominant and more
ied violence as a uni-modal factor. It is true that when likely to cheat on a partner are just some of the nega-
one domain of violence increases, other domains may tive traits that are associated with men’s masculinity
show the same pattern. For instance, public violence in (Booth and Dabbs 1993; Boothroyd et al. 2007; Fink
North India correlated positively with elevated risks of et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2010). These associations may
domestic violence against women (Koenig et al. 2006). explain why the women studied here prefer less mascu-
It should be noted that different violence domains have line male partners when they feel there is a higher risk
different actors as perpetrators and as victims. Public of domestic violence. This preference may be a reflec-
violence is known to be mostly driven by violence be- tion of women’s strategy to avoid those partners who
tween men. This has been shown extensively through are more likely to behave aggressively and dangerously
Daly’s work on the BYoung male syndrome^. Gang vi- towards women or their offspring. Consistent with this
olence in Detroit was found to be overrepresented by explanation, living in environments where within-
young men for example (Wilson and Daly 1985). By partnership violence is common would be a scenario
contrast, in most cases of domestic violence, men act where it would be advantageous to prefer less masculine
as the perpetrators and women are the victims partners. In support of this reasoning, Li et al. (2014)
(Zlotnick et al. 1998; Brewster et al. 2002; Miller found that when women were shown images of males
2005). This is evident from studies in the USA, where hitting females, their preferences for masculine male
only 16% of domestic violence disputes were perpetrat- faces were disrupted. Additionally, when Colombian
ed by women (Miller 2005). Reciprocally, 73% of inju- women agreed more with men being dangerous to their
ry reports from within-partnership violence were from children, their masculinity preferences for Salvadoran
women (Zlotnick et al. 1998). Accordingly, women male faces were lower (Borras-Guevara et al. 2017).
should show different concerns about domestic violence Furthermore, in comparison to men, women invest a
and public violence. The results from our factor analysis lot more energy and time in their offspring (Trivers
corroborate that violence is not a uni-modal factor and 1972; Geary 2000). This makes it especially important
can arise independently, either from within the house- for women to be able to recognise facial cues in poten-
hold (domestic violence) or outside the household (pub- tial partners that hint at aggressive tendencies and
lic violence). It is notable that concerns about men’s untrustworthiness (Stirrat and Perrett 2010).
violence against children, women’s violence against
men and men’s violence against women all group to-
gether (Table 1). This is consistent with the co- Effects of violence on masculinity preferences depend
occurrence of multiple forms of domestic violence on the ethnicity of facial stimuli
(Coulter and Mercado-Crespo 2015).
To understand the trade-off women face in partner selec- When women thought there was a higher likelihood of domes-
tion, one needs to define the perceived frequency and severity tic violence in their surroundings, their masculinity prefer-
of the different forms of violence. When domestic violence is ences for Colombian male faces were significantly lower.
perceived to be rare but public violence is common, protection Since participants in this study are more likely to form a part-
may become a priority. In the field, future investigations could nership with a Colombian male, these results may indicate that
ask women what type of violence they fear more, violence women are more sensitive to masculinity cues and their asso-
from a stranger (public violence) or violence from a partner ciations in Colombian faces.
Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175 Page 9 of 14 175

Masculinity preferences at the individual level women’s preferences for masculine partners depend
on the extent of the risks associated with violence,
An increase in women’s preferences for masculinity in both from strangers and from within the partnership.
partners has been claimed to be a result of their need If women or their partners are more likely to experi-
for protection in harsh/violent settings (Brooks et al. ence public violence than domestic violence, then it
2010; Puts 2010; Snyder et al. 2011; Ryder et al. would be in their interest to prefer male partners or
2016). More recent studies, however, have suggested friends who can offer better protection (i.e. men with
that a reduction in women’s masculinity preferences masculine formidable characteristics). On the other
may reflect an additional strategy to avoid men who hand, if the risks of domestic violence are higher than
are more likely to be aggressive within the home those of public violence, then women may prefer part-
(Borras-Guevara et al. 2017). Our results support this ners who are less likely to be aggressive (i.e. men
latter claim; as in the present study, women who who are less masculine and formidable), as shown in
thought there was a higher likelihood of domestic vio- our results.
lence preferred less masculine male faces. On the other
hand, at the population level, women from countries
with high-income inequality, which is associated with
high public violence, showed higher masculinity prefer- General conclusion
ences than women from countries with low-income in-
equality (Brooks et al. 2010; but see Debruine et al. In accordance with the trade-off theory (Gangestad and
2011). The results presented here show that public vio- Simpson 2000; Thornhill and Gangestad 2006), our results
lence did not influence women’s masculinity prefer- show the advantages of low masculinity within the home en-
ences, whereas domestic violence did. The divergence vironment. We found a negative relationship between
of the results presented here and the interpretation of women’s masculinity preferences for male faces and likeli-
Brooks et al. (2010) may reflect that when Colombian hood of domestic violence: Colombian women who thought
women are faced with risks related to within-partnership there was a higher likelihood of domestic violence had lower
violence and/or public violence, the former will matter masculinity preferences for Colombian male faces. Whereas
more in partner preferences. Additionally, the fact that former studies have mostly focused on the influence of envi-
traditional social roles are still the norm in Colombia, ronmental factors at the population level, the findings present-
men being the providers and women the housekeepers, ed here indicate that individual perceptions of domestic vio-
could also explain why women worry more about do- lence affect women’s masculinity preferences for male faces.
mestic violence as they spend most of their time at
home where risks of being hurt would most likely come
from partners. Furthermore, our results are at the indi-
vidual level, whereas Brooks’ results are based on con-
sideration of country-level indicators. Aggregating mea- Acknowledgments We thank Anne Perrett for proof-reading, Luz
Martha Guevara and Rafael Borras for being the best research assistants
sures at the population level could conflate the effects
one could ask for, all our Colombian participants for kindly opening their
of multiple independent factors. For example, indexes of homes to be part of our study, and the two reviewers who helped us
pathogen load and homicide rates could be correlated improve the quality of this paper.
with each other at the population level yet have inde-
Funding This work was funded by Colciencias (Call 646), St Leonard’s
pendent effects on masculinity preferences at the indi-
College, University of St Andrews and The Russell Trust Foundation
vidual level. This type of discrepancy between popula- (Call 2016-2).
tion and individual levels of analyses has been found
before (see Pollet et al. 2014). Since Snyder et al. Compliance with ethical standards
(2011) found that women’s formidability preferences
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
were explained by individual vulnerability to crime but
interest.
not by neighbourhood crime, it seems that large-scale
measures may not indicate what is happening at the
individual level. Ethical approval Research protocols were approved by the Ethics
Vulnerability to public violence predicted women’s Committee of the University of St Andrews.
preferences for more formidable male bodies as well
as male personality characteristics associated with for-
Informed consent Written informed consent was obtained from all
midability (Snyder et al. 2011). Results presented here participants in the study. All data were collected and stored in compliance
do not challenge those of Snyder’s; we believe that with the UK’s Data Protection Act.
175 Page 10 of 14 Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

Appendix c. 4 - 6
d. All the time
Questionnaire 2. Do you have TV at home? (Yes/No)

English version a. If you answered yes, how much national TV you

watch per day?
1. Demography
1. How old are you? i. 30 minutes
2. Please indicate your gender at birth. ii. 1 hour
iii. 2 hours
a. Female iv. 3 hours
b. Male v. More than 3 hours
c. Other 3. Do you have foreign/cable TV at home?
d. Prefer not to say
a. If you answered yes, how much foreign TVyou watch
i. If female, at what age did you get your first period? per day?
3. Please indicate how would you rate your sexual orienta-
tion? (1 completely homosexual - 4 bisexual - 7 i. 30 minutes
completely heterosexual). You can skip this question if ii. 1 hour
you would prefer. iii. 2 hours
4. Are you currently in a committed relationship? (Yes/No) iv. 3 hours
v. More than 3 hours
a. If not, would you like to be in a committed relation- 5. Fear of violence
ship? (Yes/No) 1. In general, how much in danger from violence do you feel
5. Do you have any children? (Yes/No) in the following places? (1 Bfeel no danger at all^ - 7 Bfeel
very much in danger^).
a. If yes, how many children do you have?
b. If yes, please indicate what is the age of your youn- In town/city
gest child: ____ In the country
2. Health
1. In general, how would you rate your health? (1 poor - 7 2. From 1 to 7, how worried do you feel when you are
excellent) already in bed and you realise you have forgotten to
2. On average how many times a year do you get sick, so lock/block your home front door? (1 Bnot at all worried,
that you are confined to stay in bed? I would sleep like a baby^ - 7 being Bvery worried, I
3. During childhood (before 13 years old) how often in a would jump out of bed straight away to lock/block the
year did you get a serious illness that confined you to door^).
bed? (1 never - 7 more than 5 times a year) 6. Perceived vulnerability to public violence
3. Education
1. Please indicate the highest level of education you How much do you worry about falling victim of the
attained or are currently enrolled in. following crimes on a regular basis? (1 being not at all
- 7 all the time)
a. illiterate/ attended primary school/ completed primary
school/ attended secondary school/ completed secondary 1. Being attacked by a stranger in the street
school/ attended university/ completed undergraduate 2. Being robbed or mugged in the street
degree/ attended postgraduate degree/ completed post- 3. Being harassed, threatened or verbally abused in the
graduate degree street
4. Being pick-pocketed
4. Development 5. Having something stolen in a violent manner
1. How many times a week do you have access to the 6. Having your home or property vandalised
internet? 7. Having someone break into your home whilst you or
your family are there
a. 0 - 2 8. Having someone break into your home whilst the inhab-
b. 2 - 4 itants are away
Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175 Page 11 of 14 175

7. Domestic violence 2. Salud

1. How likely is a woman to be the target of domestic/
partner violence in your area (e.g. neighbourhood, 1. En general como clasificaria su salud? (1 mala - 7
town)? (1 not likely at all - 7 very likely) excelente)
2. How likely is a guy to be the target of domestic/partner 2. En promedio, cuantas veces al año se enferma usted?
violence in your area (e.g. neighbourhood, town)? (1 not 3. Durante su niñez (antes de los 13 años) que tan
likely at all - 7 very likely) frecuentemente una enfermedad grave lo obligo a
3. How much do you agree with the following statement estar en cama? (1 nunca - 7 mas de 5 veces al ano)
BMen are dangerous to their own children^ (1 complete- 3. Educacion
ly disagree - 7 completely agree).
8. Vulnerability within own relationship 1. Por favor indique su nivel mas alto de estudios?
1. How vulnerable do women (in your area/town) feel
if they have a confrontation with their partner? (1 a. analafabeta/ atendio la primaria/ se gradua de la
not vulnerable at all - 7 very vulnerable). primaria/ atendio el bachillerato/ se gradua del
2. If a woman (in your town) disagrees with her part- bachillerato/ atendio la universidad/ se graduo de
ner about something that really matters to her, is la universidad/atendio el post-grado/se gradua del
she likely to feel safe enough to tell him (1 very post-grado.
likely to feel safe enough - 7 not very likely to
feel safe enough). 4. Desarrollo
3. How vulnerable do men (in your area/town) feel if they
have a confrontation with their partner? (1 not vulnerable 1. Cuantas veces a la semana tiene usted acceso al
at all - 7 very vulnerable). internet?
4. If a man (in your town) disagrees with his partner about
something that really matters to him, is he likely to feel a. 0-2
safe enough to tell her (1 very likely to feel safe enough - b. 2-4
7 not very likely to feel safe enough). c. 4-6
d. Todo el tiempo

2. Tiene usted television en casa?

Spanish version a. Si respondio si, cuanta television nacional ve usted
al dia?
1. Demografia i. 30 minutos
ii. 1 hora
1. Cuál es su edad? iii. 2 horas
2. Por favor indique su sexo al momento de su iv. 3 horas
nacimiento? v. Mas de 3 horas

a. Hombre 3. Tiene usted television por cable/parabolica en casa?

b. Mujer a. Si respondio si, cuanta television por cable/parabolica ve
c. Otro usted al dia?
d. Prefiere no responder
i. 30 minutos
i. Si respondio que es mujer, a que edad le llego su primera ii. 1 hora
menstrucaion? iii. 2 horas
iv. 3 horas
3. Por favor indique como clasificaria su orientacion v. Mas de 3 horas
sexual? (1 completamente homosexual-4 bisexual y
7 completamente heterosexual). 5. Violencia
4. Esta usted en una relacion?
5. Tiene hijos? 1. En general que tan seguro frente a la violencia se
siente usted en los siguientes lugares? En una escala
a. Si respondio si, cuantos hijos tiene? de 1 a 7, 1 siendo ningún riesgo a su seguridad y 7 alto
b. Si respondio si, cual es la edad de su hijo menor? riesgo a su seguridad.
175 Page 12 of 14 Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

En la ciudad/pueblo a su pareja? (1 muy probable que se sienta a salvo - 7

En su país poco probable que se sienta a salvo)

2. Usted se encuentra listo para dormir, ya entre su

cama, de 1 a 7, que tanto le preocuparia a usted dejar
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
la puerta de su casa abierta? (1 no me preocuparía en Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
lo absoluto, dormiria como un bebe - 7 me creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
preocuparía demasiado, saltaria de la cama a cerrar distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link
la puerta).
to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

6. Vulnerabilidad a violencia publica

References
Que. tanto se preocupa usted regularmente de ser victima
de los siguientes crímenes (en una escala de 1 a 7, 1 no se
Apicella CL, Feinberg DR, Marlowe FW (2007) Voice pitch predicts
preocupa en lo absoluto - 7 se preocupa todo el tiempo). reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biol Lett 3(6):682–
684. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0410
1. Ser atacado por un extraño en la calle Barber N (1995) The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness:
2. Ser robado en la calle sexual selection and human morphology. Ethol Sociobiol 16(5):
395–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(95)00068-2
3. Ser acosado, amenazado o abusado verbalmente en la Batres C, Perrett DI (2014) The influence of the digital divide on face
calle preferences in El Salvador: people without internet access prefer
4. Ser chalequiado en la calle more feminine men, more masculine women, and women with
5. Que. alguien le robe de manera violenta higher adiposity. PLoS One 9(7):e100966. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0100966
6. Que. roben o vandalicen su casa
Batres C, Re DE, Perrett DI (2015) Influence of perceived height, mas-
7. Que. alguien entre a robar a su casa cuando esta esta sola culinity, and age on each other and on perceptions of dominance in
8. Que. alguien entre a robar su casa cuando hay gente allí male faces. Perception 44(11):1293–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/
7. Violencia domestica 0301006615596898
Bergeron P, Grignolio S, Apollonio M, Shipley B, Festa-Bianchet M
(2010) Secondary sexual characters signal fighting ability and deter-
1. Que. tan probable es que una mujer sea objeto de mine social rank in Alpine ibex (Capra ibex). Behav Ecol Sociobiol
violencia domestica en su barrio? (1 no es para nada 64(8):1299–1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0944-x
probable - 7 muy probable). Booth A, Dabbs JM (1993) Testosterone and men’s marriages. Soc
2. Que. tan probable es que un hombre sea objeto de Forces 72(2):463–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/72.2.463
violencia domestica en su barrio? (1 no es para nada Boothroyd LG, Cross CP, Gray AW, Coombes C, Gregson-Curtis K
(2011) Perceiving the facial correlates of sociosexuality: further ev-
probable - 7 muy probable). idence. Pers Indiv Differ 50(3):422–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
3. Que. tan de acuerdo esta usted con la siguiente paid.2010.10.017
afirmación? BLos hombres pueden ser un peligro para Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, DeBruine LM, Perrett DI (2008)
sus propios hijos^ Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol Hum Behav 29(3):211–218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.009
8. Vulnerabilidad en pareja
Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2007) Partner character-
istics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces.
1. Que. tan vulnerables se sientes las mujeres en su Pers Indiv Differ 43(5):1161–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
barrio si tienen una confrontación con su pareja? 2007.03.008
(1 no se sienten vulnerables - 7 muy Borras-Guevara ML, Batres C, Perrett DI (2017) Aggressor or protector?
Experiences and perceptions of violence predict preferences for
vulnerables) masculinity. Evol Hum Behav 38(4):481–489. https://doi.org/10.
2. Si una mujer esta en desacuerdo con su pareja con 1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.03.004
respecto a algo que realmente le importa a ella, que Brewster AL, Milner JS, Mollerstrom WW, Saha BT, Harris N (2002)
tan probable es que ella se sienta a salvo de Evaluation of spouse abuse treatment: description and evaluation of
the Air Force Family Advocacy Programs for spouse physical
comunicárselo a su pareja? (1 muy probable que se
abuse. Mil Med 167(6):464–469
sienta a salvo - 7 poco probable que se sienta a salvo) Brooks R, Scott IM, Maklakov AA, Kasumovic MM, Clark AP, Penton-
3. Que. tan vulnerables se sientes los hombres en su Voak IS (2010) National income inequality predicts women’s pref-
barrio si tienen una confrontación con su pareja? (1 erences for masculinized faces better than health does. Proc R Soc
no se sienten vulnerables - 7 muy vulnerables) Lond B 278:810–812
Coulter ML, Mercado-Crespo MC (2015) Co-occurrence of intimate part-
4. Si un hombre esta en desacuerdo con su pareja con ner violence and child maltreatment: service providers’ perceptions.
respecto a algo que realmente le importa a el, que tan J Fam Violence 30(2):255–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-
probable es que el se sienta a salvo de comunicárselo 014-9667-5
Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175 Page 13 of 14 175

DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Crawford JR, Welling LL, Little AC (2010) Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde JJ, Soler AJ, Vicente J, Gortazar C,
The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural Gomendio M (2009) What does testosterone do for red deer males?
variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc Proc R Soc Lond B 276(1658):971–980. https://doi.org/10.1098/
R Soc Lond B 277(1692):2405–2410. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb. rspb.2008.1367
2009.2184 Miller SL (2005) Victims as offenders: the paradox of women’s violence
DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Crawford JR, Welling LL (2011) in relationships. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ
Further evidence for regional variation in women’s masculinity pref- O’Connor JJM, Fraccaro PJ, Feinberg DR (2012) The influence of male
erences. Proc R Soc Lond B 278(1707):813–814. https://doi.org/10. voice pitch on women’s perceptions of relationship investment. J
1098/rspb.2010.2200 Evol Psychol 10(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.10.2012.1.1
Emlen DJ (2008) The evolution of animal weapons. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Penton-Voak IS, Jacobson A, Trivers R (2004) Populational differences in
S 39(1):387–413. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39. attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: comparing
110707.173502 British and Jamaican samples. Evol Hum Behav 25(6):355–370.
Fink B, Neave N, Seydel H (2007) Male facial appearance signals phys- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.06.002
ical strength to women. Am J Hum Biol 19(1):82–87. https://doi. Perrett DI, Lee K, Penton-Voak I, Burt DM, Rowland D,Yoshikawa S, et
org/10.1002/ajhb.20583 al, (1998) Sexual dimorphism and facial attractiveness. Nature 394:
Gangestad SW, Simpson JA (2000) The evolution of human mating: 884–886
trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 23(4):573–587. Pollet TV, Tybur JM, Frankenhuis WE, Rickard IJ (2014) What can cross-
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X cultural correlations teach us about human nature? Hum Nat 25(3):
Geary DC (2000) Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-014-9206-3
investment. Psychol Bull 126(1):55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Pemberton JM, Coltman DW, Wilson K
0033-2909.126.1.55 (2003) Overt and covert competition in a promiscuous mammal:
Henrich J, Heine S, Norenzayana A (2010) The weirdest people in the the importance of weaponry and testes size to male reproductive
world? Behav Brain Sci 33(2-3):61–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/ success. Proc R Soc Lond B 270(1515):633–640. https://doi.org/
S0140525X0999152X 10.1098/rspb.2002.2268
Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Main JC, Little AC, Welling LL, Feinberg DR, Puts DA (2009) The evolution of human sexuality: an anthropological
Tiddeman BP (2010) Facial cues of dominance modulate the short- perspective. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque
term gaze-cuing effect in human observers. Proc R Soc of Lond B Puts DA (2010) Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in
277(1681):617–624. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1575 humans. Evol Hum Behav 31(3):157–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kasser T, Sharma YS (1999) Reproductive freedom, educational equality, evolhumbehav.2010.02.005
and females’ preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in Puts DA, Jones BC, DeBruine LM (2012) Sexual selection on human
mates. Psychol Sci 10(4):374–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- faces and voices. J Sex Res 49(2-3):227–243. https://doi.org/10.
9280.00171 1080/00224499.2012.658924
Koenig M, Stephenson R, Ahmed S, Jejeebhoy S, Campbell J (2006) Rantala MJ, Coetzee V, Moore FR, Skrinda I, Kecko S, Krama T, Krams I
Individual and context determinants of domestic violence in North (2013) Adiposity, compared with masculinity, serves as a more valid
India. Am J Public Health 96(1):132–138. https://doi.org/10.2105/ cue to immunocompetence in human mate choice. Proc R Soc B
AJPH.2004.050872 280(1751):20122495. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2495
Li Y, Bailey DH, Winegard B, Puts DA, Welling LL, Geary DC (2014) Rantala MJ, Moore FR, Skrinda I, Krama T, Kivleniece I, Kecko S,
Women’s preference for masculine traits is disrupted by images of Krams I (2012) Evidence for the stress-linked immunocompetence
male-on-female aggression. PLoS One 9(10):e110497. https://doi. handicap hypothesis in humans. Nat Commun 3:694. https://doi.org/
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110497 10.1038/ncomms1696
Lie HC, Rhodes G, Simmons LW (2008) Genetic diversity revealed in Rhodes G, Chan J, Zebrowitz LA, Simmons LW (2003) Does sexual
human faces. Evolution 62(10):2473–2486. https://doi.org/10.1111/ dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proc R Soc Lond B
j.1558-5646.2008.00478.x 270(Suppl_1):S93–S95. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0023
Little AC, Cohen DL, Jones BC, Belsky J (2007) Human preferences for Rhodes G, Simmons LW, Peters M (2005) Attractiveness and sexual
facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental behavior: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol Hum
harshness. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61(6):967–973. https://doi.org/10. Behav 26(2):186–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.
1007/s00265-006-0325-7 2004.08.014
Little AC, DeBruine LM, Jones BC (2011a) Exposure to visual cues of Ryder H, Maltby J, Rai L, Jones P, Flowe HD (2016) Women’s fear of
pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and sym- crime and preference for formidable mates: how specific are the
metry in opposite-sex faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 278(1714):2032– underlying psychological mechanisms? Evol Hum Behav 37(4):
2039. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1925 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.01.005
Little AC, DeBruine LM, Jones BC (2013) Environment contingent pref- Santos ESA, Scheck D, Nakawaska S (2011) Dominance and plumage
erences: exposure to visual cues of direct male–male competition traits: meta-analysis and metaregression analysis. Anim Behav
and wealth increase women’s preferences for masculinity in male 82(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.022
faces. Evol Hum Behav 34(3):193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Scott IM, Clark AP, Boothroyd LG, Penton-Voak IS (2013) Do men’s
evolhumbehav.2012.11.008 faces really signal heritable immunocompetence? Behav Ecol 24(3):
Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM (2011b) Facial attractiveness: evolu- 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars092
tionary based research. Philos T Roy Soc B 366(1571):1638–1659. Scott IM, Clark AP, Josephson SC, Boyette AH, Cuthill IC, Fried RL,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404 Honey PL (2014) Human preferences for sexually dimorphic faces
Lustgraaf C, Brown M, Young S (2015) Activation of self-protection may be evolutionarily novel. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111(40):14388–
threat increases women’s preferences for dominance in male faces. 14393. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1409643111
Hum Ethol Bull 30:23–31 Snyder JK, Fessler DM, Tiokhin L, Frederick DA, Lee SW, Navarrete CD
Marty JS, Higham JP, Gadsby EL, Ross C (2009) Dominance, coloration, (2011) Trade-offs in a dangerous world: women’s fear of crime
and social and sexual behavior in male drills Mandrillus predicts preferences for aggressive and formidable mates. Evol
leucophaeus. Int J Primatol 30(6):807–823. https://doi.org/10. Hum Behav 32(2):127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
1007/s10764-009-9382-x evolhumbehav.2010.08.007
175 Page 14 of 14 Behav Ecol Sociobiol (2017) 71: 175

Stephen ID, Scott IM, Coetzee V, Pound N, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell
(2012) Cross-cultural effects of color, but not morphological mas- B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971. Aldine
culinity, on perceived attractiveness of men’s faces. Evol Hum Publishing Company, Chicago, pp 136–207
Behav 33(4):260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav. Tybur JM, Gangestad SW (2011) Mate preferences and infectious dis-
2011.10.003 ease: theoretical considerations and evidence in humans. Philos T
Stirrat M, Perrett DI (2010) Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust male Roy Soc B 366(1583):3375–3388. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.
facial width and trustworthiness. Psychol Sci 21(3):349–354. https:// 2011.0136
doi.org/10.1177/0956797610362647 Wilson M, Daly M (1985) Competitiveness, risk taking and violence: the
Tiddeman B, Burt M, Perrett D (2001) Prototyping and transforming young male syndrome. Evol Hum Behav 6:59–73
facial textures for perception research, IEEE. Comput Graph Wolff SE, Puts DA (2010) Vocal masculinity is a robust dominance signal
21(4):42–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.946630 in men. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64(10):1673–1683. https://doi.org/10.
Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (2006) Facial sexual dimorphism, develop- 1007/s00265-010-0981-5
mental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Zlotnick C, Kohn R, Peterson J, Pearlstein T (1998) Partner physical
Evol Hum Behav 27(2):131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. victimization in a national sample of American families. J
evolhumbehav.2005.06.001 Interpers Violence 13(1):156–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/
088626098013001009