Evolutionary basis of PA studies

Evolutionary basis of PA studies

1. Cunningham (1986) investigated what types of F faces are found attractive by M's. Systematically varied size of F facial features + found M most A to features associated with young children (Large eyes, small nose + chins) Some features associated with maturity also found A.

2. Waynforth (2005) found masculine Facial features (square jaw, rigid eyebrows) were preferred by W especially those seeking ST R's.

3. Langlois et al (2000) Meta-analysis of 919 studies into PA. Found considerable agreement within cultures as to who is attractive + who is not. Also some agreement between C's. Also found that a preference for A faces is shown in early childhood and emerge strongly by 26mths.

4. Singh (1993) found across cultures preference for female waist-hip ratio of 0.7 (hour-glass shape). Prefernce exists despite C differneces for curvier or slimmer figures. In M's WHR is around 0.85/0.9 which signifies tapering figure from wide shoulders to narrowing hips.

5. Pawlowski (2008) asked 218 M + F's to rank A of 7 pics of M/ 7 of W showing digitally altered leg length. Found both sexes found 5% longer legs than avergae more attractive

6. Partner Selection. We can look at LT preference by looking at characteristics sought in Personal adverts.

   • Dubar + Waynforth (1995)- 900 PA from NA newspapers. Found a younger partner was important to 42% of M compared to 1/4 of W. PA sought by 44% of men compared to 22% of W.
   • David Buss (1989) Cross cultural study of 33 countries looking at PP in M + W. Found M valued PA more than W, M valued W who were younger than themselves +W valued FC of potential partner more than M
   • Baily +Zucker (1995) looked at p's of gay/straight M + found they resembled.