Female Choice

1. Female Choice

2. Limiting Resource • Females • Finite offspring production • Intersexual selection • “Female choice”

3. To Be Considered • Male dominance and status • Male resources • Paternal investment (Dads vs. Cads)

4. Buss (1989) • Cross cultural • Women rank current resources, ambition, and dominance (social status) highly • Dominance and resources generally positively correlated

5. Sadalla et al. (1987) • Silent video of two men interacting in office environment shown to female subjects • More dominant male rated as having higher status and being more attractive • Actual attributes of each male controlled for

6. Theory • Dominant males should produce more offspring than submissive males • More access to females • Intra- and intersexual competition • Polygyny • Maximize inclusive fitness

7. Non-humans and Pre-modern Humans • Non-humans: this generalization seems to hold quite well (e.g., Ellis 2002) • Also, for pre-modern humans (e.g., Boone (1986), Borgerhoff Mulder (1990), Voland (1990)) • Problems with application to modern, industrialized human populations • Low socioeconomic classes have more children than upper classes

8. Dominance • Socioeconomic class may not be a good measure of dominance • Humans evolved in small social groups • Mazur et al. (1984): West Pointers • Graduation photos and rank 20 years later • Dominants didn’t have more children than submissives • Modern contraception

9. Mazur, Halpern & Udry (1994) • Redirected the question • Do dominant looking males have more opportunity for copulation than submissive males? • In pre-modern period this would likely correlate with higher number of offspring

10. Method • 3 year longitudinal study • Male students, starting at grade 7 or 8 • Every 6 months • Questionnaire on sexual experience • Assessment of pubertal development • Dominance rating based on school yearbook photo • Attractiveness rating • Self and interviewer ratings

11. Results • Most sexually active boys are more: • Dominant looking, attractive, pubertally developed • Dominant boys tend to be attractive • Dominant and attractive boys tend not to wear glasses • Dominance is the best predictor of sexual intercourse

12. What Makes a Dominant Teenage Male? • Dominant faces • Handsome or muscular • Oval or rectangular in shape • Prominent brow and chin • Submissive faces • Round (pudgy) or narrow (skinny) • Less attractive • Have glasses

13. Implications • Dominance is the best predictor, although attractiveness is also important • No data here on female choice • Are females attracted to dominant males? • Do dominant males make their own opportunities for sexual experience?

14. Bogaret & Fisher (1995) • Variability in sexual behaviour • Physiological, cultural, behavioural explanations • Between sexes • Within sexes • Often larger than between

15. Study • Used 9 predictor variables • Age, attractiveness, psychoticism, dominance, social intimacy, male hypermasculinity, testosterone, sensation seeking, sexual affect • Recorded number of lifetime sexual partners and number of partners in one month from 215 male undergraduates • Question: are some of the 9 variables redundant?

16. Results • Significant positive correlation between number of lifetime sexual partners and: • Positive sexual affect, antisocial tendencies, physical attractiveness, sensation seeking, and testosterone • Age, sensation seeking, and testosterone account for 25-30% of the variation

17. Townsend, Kline, & Wasserman (1995) • University age males and females with high sexual activity • Males with greatest number of sexual partners were star athletes, fraternity leaders, other high profile positions

18. Status • Male success depended upon their status being high and being known • E.g., football and basketball stars had greater access to women than rugby and lacrosse, especially when football and basketball on network TV • Male’s best success was with female university students who knew their status • Wear varsity jacket to advertise

19. Status and Fitness • Across species, link between male status and fitness • Symons (1979) argues females mating with such males will achieve sons that will be equally successful • Success of university athletes in previous study?

20. Sperm donor Long-term mate Mean Importance Rating Character Health Physical Abilities Heritability 1.93 4.05 4.69 3.36 Scheib (1994) • Hypothetical artificial insemination • Decouples genetic from resource contribution • Hypothetical dating service (for long-term relationship)

21. Heritability • Physical, health, abilities, then character • Character/personality not believed to be passed by genes • Value in long-term mate understandable, but importance in sperm donor unexpected • Possibility that it is very difficult to decouple psychological mechanisms of long-term choice in sperm donor context

22. Age & Status • Buss (1989) • Preference for males 3.42 years older • Male RV • Resources • Gangestad & Buss (1993) • Slight negative effect on female preference for physical attractiveness • The more wealth men can acquire, the less important looks are

23. Age difference (years)Percent -27 0.1 -15 0.1 -12 0.2 -11 0.1 -10 0.4 -9 0.1 -8 0.1 -7 0.3 -6 0.6 -5 1.1 -4 0.6 -3 1.1 -2 2.5 -1 3.7 0 8.0 1 8.4 2 14.1 3 11.5 4 12.3 5 7.6 6 6.7 7 5.1 8 3.4 9 3.3 10 2.4 11 1.5 12 0.8 13 1.2 14 0.6 15 0.1 16 0.4 17 0.5 18 0.1 19 0.1 20 0.5 22 0.1 Bereczkei & Csanaky (1996) 11.4% • Hungarian data set • Couples with older, higher educated husbands and younger, less educated wives had significantly longer marriages Female Mean age age at difference Marriage (years) 17 -5.21 18-20 -4.25 21-23 -3.11 24-28 -2.41 >28 -5.13 Age difference Mean number at marriage of children Younger husband 1.68 No age difference 1.85 Older husband 1.91 - female older; + male older

24. Hopcroft (2006) • Status and reproductive success • Potential fertility • Reported rates of sex • Achieved fertility • Number of biological children claimed • United States, General Social Surveys (1989-2000)

25. Results • Income increases frequency of sex for males, but not females • Education decreases potential and achieved fertility for males and females • But, better educated men have more children than better educated women

26. Conclusions • Income increases male/female differences and education narrows male/female differences re: fertility behaviour • Income, for males, at least may translate to proximate and ultimate reproductive success • Extremes (very poor and very rich) excluded from this study, though

27. Testosterone • Believed to be immunosuppressant (Kanda et al. 1996) • Handicap principle • Male facial features may be honest signal of genetic fitness

28. Conflict • High testosterone males • Good genes • Higher number of sexual partners • Low(er) parental investors

29. Mazur & Michalek (1998) • Measured testosterone in military men • Testosterone levels drop at time of marriage • High testosterone males have less stable marriages

30. Gray et al. (2004) • Compared testosterone levels in males in different relationships • Single males had higher testosterone levels than those in established relationships • Suggests testosterone drops in long-term relationships to promote pairbonding

31. Waynforth, Delwadia & Camm (2005) • Facial photos of 45 men • Measures of facial features (e.g., jaw, eyebrow ridge) influenced by testosterone • Women rated photos for attractiveness • Only women interested in short-term relationships (higher sociosexuality scores) showed preference for facial masculinity • Most preferred less testosterone-driven face

32. Meaning… • Some support for handicap principle • But, handicap interpretation not the only or the most significant factor in female choice • Changing testosterone levels in males given relationship type complicates matter

33. Boothroyd et al. (2005) • Examined male faces • Female variables • Their own attractiveness, phase of menstrual cycle, in or out of a current relationship • Interestingly, female preferences explainable by maturity cues as opposed to health cues

34. Multiple Motives Hypothesis • Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike (1990) • Female choice contradictory • Want dominant, high status mature male, but also want socially approachable, nurturing characteristics

35. Dominant Males • Good defense against other males • Protection of female, mate guarding • High aggression • May be directed at female and/or offspring • More likelihood of promiscuity/polygyny

36. Four Features • Neonate • E.g., large eyes, small nose area • Mature • E.g., prominent cheekbones, large chin, thick eyebrows • Expressive • E.g., large smile • Grooming • E.g., high status clothing

37. Ideal Face • Not an average • Extreme neonate and mature features combined to produce most attractive male faces • “Cute” and “rugged” simultaneously • Elicits feelings of nurturance and respect in women

38. Other Body Attributes • Want dominant, but not too dominant • Various features besides facial representative • Graziano et al. (1978) • Even tall women prefer men of medium as opposed to short, or very tall height • Horvath (1981) • Women prefer moderately-broad to non- or very- broad shoulders • Lavrakas (1975) • Female preference for fit, but not extreme male physique

39. Female Alternatives • Good genes • Dominant, masculine • “Cads” • Good paternal investment • Willingness to provide resources • “Dads”

40. Dads • Schmitt & Buss (1996) • Demonstrate helpfulness, honesty, kindness, sensitivity • Good communication skills • Invoke love and show commitment • Display resources and/or show potential for long-term resource stability

41. Cads • Buss & Schmitt (1993) • Machismo • Provide immediate resources as gifts • Dominance displays • Show-off • Don’t have or won’t invest for long-term

42. Options • Secure a Dad • Gain resources • May not be best genes • Extrapair copulations (EPCs) • Mate with Cad • High quality genes

43. Concealed Ovulation • Human females lack obvious signs of estrous, unusual within the primates (Domb & Pagel, 2001) • Most primates (and other mammals) only mate when females are likely to conceive

44. Theories • Promotes paternal certainty (Alexander & Noonan, 1979) • Male forced to mate guard and mate with a female frequently • Promotes paternal confusion (Hrdy, 1981) • Many males mate with female and any could be father of offspring; reduces infanticide • Reduces risk that self-aware human females will use contraception to avoid risks of pregnancy (Burley, 1979) • Benefits females by allowing for EPCs with higher quality males

45. Female Reproductive Cycle • Normally ovulating women fertile for 6-7 days each month • Sperm can survive for several days in uterus • Hours after ovulation, conception no longer possible • Females will, however, have sexual intercourse throughout their reproductive cycle (i.e., non-reproductive sex) (Bellis & Baker 1990; Baker & Bellis 1995)

46. Female Sexual Desire • Continuous receptivity, but changing sexual desire across the cycle • Sexual desire peaks in mid-to-late follicular and periovulatory phases of cycle (Regan 1996; Slob et al. 1996) • With increased sexual interest mid-cycle, might predict increased frequency of female-initiated sexual intercourse at mid-cycle

47. Female EPCs • Baker & Bellis (1995) • Women with long-term sexual partner • 6% reported last sexual intercourse with extrapair partner • Frequency of EPC was three times more likely to occur at mid-cycle • Gangestad et al. (2001) • Females more likely to fantasize about extrapair partner at mid-cycle

48. Implication • Females adapted to mate when most likely to conceive • Females in long-term relationships are more likely to engage in EPCs when most likely to conceive • Risk of getting caught? • …Heading off on a bit of a tangent here…

49. Gangestad & Cousins (2001) • Low FA men rated as attractive only by women interested in casual sex • For long-term relationships, these same women did not find low FA men more attractive • If low FA correlates with higher genetic fitness, offers support for idea of females’ use of traits to identify good gene providers

50. Low FA Males as Mates • Various studies show that low FA males may make poor long-term mates • Have more female partners, produce more offspring, more dominant, more likely to get into fights, etc. (Waynforth 1998; Gangestad & Thornhill 1997, Furlow et al. 1998) • But, might be very good candidates for short-term mates (i.e., Cads)