Beards augment perceptions of men's age, social status, and aggressiveness, but not attractiveness

Dixson, Barnaby J.; Vasey, Paul L.

doi:10.1093/beheco/arr214

Cited by 124 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that beards and facial masculinity both exerted significant effects on ratings on men's dominance, which replicates several previous studies (B. J. W. Dixson & Vasey, 2012;Neave & Shields, 2008;Perrett et al, 1998;Saxton et al, 2016). However, we found no implicit associations between men's beardedness, facial masculinity, or their combination, on men's implicit responses to male dominance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Likewise, beardedness enhances men's attractiveness to women in some studies (B. J. W. Janif et al, 2014;Pellegrini, 1973;Reed & Blunk, 1990) but not in others (B. J. W. Dixson, Tam, & Awasthy, 2013; B. J. W. Dixson & Vasey, 2012;Feinman & Gill, 1977;Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996;Wogalter & Hosie, 1991), while in other cases preferences between clean-shaven faces and those with full beards are more equivocal (B. J. W. Dixson & Brooks, 2013;Neave & Shields, 2008;Saxton, Mackey, McCarty, & Neave, 2016). Even within traits for which women typically state strong preferences, such as deeper vocal pitch and muscularity (B. J. W. Dixson, Grimshaw, Ormsby, & Dixson, 2014;Frederick & Haselton, 2007), effect sizes for ratings of dominance tend to be greater than those for attractiveness (Puts, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Likewise, female preferences for facial hair, a sexually dimorphic trait, are highly variable (B. J. W. Dixson & Brooks, 2013; B. J. W. ; B. J. W. Dixson & Vasey, 2012;Feinman & Gill, 1977;Janif, Brooks, & Dixson, 2014;Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996;Pellegrini, 1973;Reed & Blunk, 1990;Wogalter & Hosie, 1991).…”

Section: The Darwinian Paradox Of Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large body of research reports that explicit judgments of men's dominance and aggressiveness are enhanced by craniofacial masculinity (DeBruine et al, 2006;Perrett et al, 1998;Spisak et al, 2012) and beardedness (B. J. W. Dixson & Brooks, 2013; B. J. W. Dixson & Vasey, 2012;Geniole, Denson, Dixson, Carré, & McCormick, 2015;Neave & Shields, 2008;Saxton et al, 2016). Further, facial masculinity is associated with measures of men's upper body strength (Fink, Neave, & Seydel, 2007;Holzleitner & Perrett, 2015;Sell et al, 2009;Windhager, Schaefer, & Fink, 2011) and behavioural dominance Pound, Penton-Voak, & Surridge, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses Regarding Individual Differences in Human Mating Strategies

Sherlock¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Finding and attracting a mate is an enormous component of human life, and indeed the life of all sexually reproducing organisms. In this search, we share many common goals in attaining a partner. For instance, most people typically seek a partner who is kind, attractive, and funny. Yet, we also differ remarkably in the traits that we desire in our partners and what drives us towards choosing some mates over others. This variation represents somewhat of a Darwinian paradox, as selection typically reduces variation in traits under strong selection, such as those relating to mating strategy. To resolve this paradox, evolutionary psychologists have proposed adaptive mechanisms that cause variation in mating strategy in response to environmental contingencies. In this thesis, I present tests of a number of these hypotheses, and integrate approaches from evolutionary behavioural genetics to provide alternative explanations as to how variation in mating strategy arises.Firstly, I review broad evolutionary approaches to explaining variation in psychological traits. Specifically, I introduce evolutionary literature regarding a proposed trade-off between parenting traits and signals of genetic quality in males that permeates approaches to various aspects of mate choice. Evidence for and against this trade-off is reviewed in the context of the maintenance of variation in facial masculinity in males and inter-partner variation in female orgasm frequency during penetrative sex. I then introduce behavioural genetics as an approach to understanding both genetic and environmental causes of variation in human mating strategy.In my first empirical study, I present a paper testing evolutionary hypotheses regarding female variation in orgasm frequency in response to male characteristics. Where previous research has focused on women reporting on a single partner and observing male characteristics across the sample, this paper had females report on partners with whom orgasm was easy and with whom orgasm was difficult. This controls for the possibility of confounds relating to between-subject studies and increases our power to detect male traits associated with orgasm over and above between women differences. Furthermore, the study also included measures of male sexual behaviour, as these are highly likely to be related to female orgasmability. We showed mixed support for evolutionary theories regarding variation in the female orgasm, but were unable to distinguish the two leading hypotheses. Additionally, we found important contributions of male sexual behaviour to female orgasm. Consequently, little can be inferred about the role of variation in the evolution of the female orgasm. However, we demonstrate that within-subjects designs are able to detect between-partner variance with high resolution. We also demonstrate that future studies need account for male sexual behaviour when attempting to explain adaptive variation in female orgasm between different male partners.ii I then present a paper providing evidence that facial ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: The Darwinian Paradox Of Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses Regarding Individual Differences in Human Mating Strategies

Sherlock¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research has consistently linked three related characteristics to fuller facial hair: perceived masculinity, social dominance and greater age (Dixson & Vasey, 2012;Muscurella & Cunningham, 1996;Neave & Shields, 2008). Masculinity is partly socially constructed but also biologically hardwired (Martin & Finn, 2012), so a fuller beard may represent an easy way for men to enhance their masculinity.…”

Section: Men's Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beard transplants and facial hair trends: why men are motivated to have surgery

Zucchelli

2017

Journal of Aesthetic Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past few years, an increasing number of men have received surgery to enhance or restore facial hair. This came at a time when beards re-entered mainstream fashion. Drawing on the research literature, this article explores the apparent link between facial hair fashion and rates of beard transplants, and considers deeper-seated psychological explanations for the trend, including perceptions of masculinity, social dominance, age and attractiveness. The question of whether beard transplants will continue to proliferate is also explored. Key wordsFacial hair; Male appearance; Cosmetic surgery; Appearance trends Key pointsData suggests the global incidence of beard transplants increased three-fold between 2012 and 2014.Research has consistently linked full-bearded men to greater perceived masculinity, social dominance and age.More mixed evidence exists regarding perceptions of attractiveness for men with full beards.Recent research suggests full coverage and uniformity of facial hair, which can be achieved through facial hair surgery, is linked to greater attractiveness.

show abstract

Physical Attractiveness: An Adaptationist Perspective

Sugiyama

2015

The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How and why do our minds generate different levels of attraction to others? This chapter integrates life history, evolutionary psychology, and human biology approaches to address this question. Biological adaptations regulate a vast number of life history trade‐offs that affect how we look, smell, sound, and behave. Selection produced adaptations that evaluate these cues and regulate our degree of attraction to others based on their relative probable social value to us in different contexts. This chapter outlinesthe alternative evolutionary explanations for the emergence of an attraction,basic components necessary for attraction systems to evolve, and sources of variation in attractiveness assessment. It identifies different domains of social value for which attractiveness assessment evolved, reviews evidence for some of the hypothesized attractiveness‐assessment adaptations in those domains, and highlights avenues calling for increased attention. Finally, it calls for greater integration of evolutionary psychology, human biological research, and data from small‐scale foraging societies to generate predictions about these domains of social value, the cues or signals associated with them, adaptations selected to regulate attraction to them, and the life history trade‐offs involved in these processes. New research on body shape attractiveness is presented to illustrate these points.

show abstract

Beards augment perceptions of men's age, social status, and aggressiveness, but not attractiveness

Cited by 124 publications

References 92 publications

Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses Regarding Individual Differences in Human Mating Strategies

Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses Regarding Individual Differences in Human Mating Strategies

Beard transplants and facial hair trends: why men are motivated to have surgery

Physical Attractiveness: An Adaptationist Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About