Fluent Essays

This is a worksheet assignment, need to fill the worksheet.Please write as detailed as possible, since this is my final project, require high quality work. Words count added at least 700.Need to 4 readings total (see attached file)1. DeBruine et al. 20102. Little et al. 20113. Quist et al. 20114. Price et al. 2013 anth_332_week_8_lab_assignment.docx cues_of_contagion_change_pref_for_symmetryproc._r._soc._b_2011_little_2032_9.pdf debruine_et_al_2010._health_of_a_nation_predicts_their_mate_preferences.pdf price_et_al_soi__whr__condition_dependent_strategiesjournal.pone.0052532.pdf sociosexuality_and_symetry_preferencequistm_in_press_410_.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview ANTH 332 Assignment 4 This worksheet does double-duty as a study guide for a part of this week’s quiz. It focuses on readings for week 8 that further investigate factors that affect variation in preferences for cues of attractiveness. Together, questions on each reading are worth 20 points. Make sure you answer all parts of each question. Type your answers into this sheet after the question you are answering, save it as a doc, docx, or pdf file, and submit it via Canvas. 1. DeBruine et al. 2010 “The Health of a Nation Predicts Their Mate Preferences: Cross-cultural Variation in Womens Preferences for Masculinized Male Faces” (pp. 277-282) 1a) According to DeBruine et al (2010), what trade-offs do women face in choosing between more and less masculine men, and how are they predicted to be related to women’s preferences cross-culturally? 1b) How were each of the following related to average facial masculinity preferences? National Health Index? GNP and Age? Mating Strategies (SOI) versus NHI as a predictor of facial masculinity preferences? 1c) In the discussion, what three additional factors that were not measured do DeBruine et al. suggest might also affect women’s cross-cultural preferences for facial masculinity. 1d) What factor limits generalizability of these results to the total range of variation in NHI? 2. Little et al. 2011 “Exposure to Visual Cues of Pathogen Contagion Changes Preferences for Masculinity and Symmetry in Opposite-Sex Faces” (pp. 2032-2039) 2a) What was the hypothesis tested in this study? 2b) Overall, what did analyses demonstrate regarding preferences for high sexual dimorphism and symmetry after exposure to cues to environmental pathogens than after exposure to images without these cues? 2c) Were these changes in preferences restricted to particular combinations of own sex and opposite sex faces? 3. Quist et al. 2011 “Sociosexuality Predicts Womens Preferences for Symmetry in Mens Faces” (pp. 1-7) 3a) What was the hypothesis tested in this study? 3b) What was the relationship between women’s sociosexual attitude and their preferences for men’s faces? For women’s faces? 3c) Why does the pattern of results from this study suggest that the underlying psychology is specific to mating and not social relations in general? 4. Price et al. 2013 “Body Shape Preferences: Associations with Rater Body Shape and Sociosexuality” (pp. 1-18) 4a) According to Price et al, why should one’s own attractiveness affect preferences for attractive traits in others? What costs are there for less attractive individuals to simply pursue the most attractive potential mates? 4c) For male raters: what was the relationship between SOI-R and attractive female traits (VHI and WHR)? what was the relationship between men’s own perceived attractiveness and their preference for attractive female traits (VHI and WHR)? 4d) For female raters what was the relationship between the woman’s own VHI, WHR, perceived attractiveness and SOI and attractive male WCR and VHI? 4c) Overall, were there greater condition-dependent body preferences among male or female raters? Why might this be? Downloaded from rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org on May 27, 2013 Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces Anthony C. Little, Lisa M. DeBruine and Benedict C. Jones Proc. R. Soc. B 2011 278, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1925 first published online 1 December 2010 References This article cites 57 articles, 17 of which can be accessed free http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1714/2032.full.html#ref-list-1 Article cited in: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1714/2032.full.html#related-urls This article is free to access Subject collections Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections behaviour (959 articles) Email alerting service Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article or click here To subscribe to Proc. R. Soc. B go to: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions Downloaded from rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org on May 27, 2013 Proc. R. Soc. B (2011) 278, 2032–2039 doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1925 Published online 1 December 2010 Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces Anthony C. Little1,*, Lisa M. DeBruine2 and Benedict C. Jones2 1 Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK 2 Evolutionary approaches to human attractiveness have documented several traits that are proposed to be attractive across individuals and cultures, although both cross-individual and cross-cultural variations are also often found. Previous studies show that parasite prevalence and mortality/health are related to cultural variation in preferences for attractive traits. Visual experience of pathogen cues may mediate such variable preferences. Here we showed individuals slideshows of images with cues to low and high pathogen prevalence and measured their visual preferences for face traits. We found that both men and women moderated their preferences for facial masculinity and symmetry according to recent experience of visual cues to environmental pathogens. Change in preferences was seen mainly for opposite-sex faces, with women preferring more masculine and more symmetric male faces and men preferring more feminine and more symmetric female faces after exposure to pathogen cues than when not exposed to such cues. Cues to environmental pathogens had no significant effects on preferences for same-sex faces. These data complement studies of cross-cultural differences in preferences by suggesting a mechanism for variation in mate preferences. Similar visual experience could lead to within-cultural agreement and differing visual experience could lead to cross-cultural variation. Overall, our data demonstrate that preferences can be strategically flexible according to recent visual experience with pathogen cues. Given that cues to pathogens may signal an increase in contagion/mortality risk, it may be adaptive to shift visual preferences in favour of proposed good-gene markers in environments where such cues are more evident. Keywords: sexual dimorphism; asymmetry; attractiveness; pathogens; disease; variation 1. INTRODUCTION Evolutionary approaches to human attractiveness have documented several traits that are proposed to be attractive across individuals and cultures, potentially reflecting species-wide ‘universal’ preferences. These include preferences for facial traits such as symmetry and sexually dimorphic cues [1]. Several researchers have proposed that symmetry and sexually dimorphic traits (masculine appearance in men and feminine appearance in women) in human faces may be cues to heritable fitness benefits and therefore relate to attractiveness (e.g. [1]). Symmetry has long been proposed to be associated with male and female genotypic quality (e.g. [2]). Deviations from perfect symmetry can be considered a reflection of imperfect development. It has been suggested that only high-quality individuals can maintain symmetric development under environmental and genetic stress and therefore symmetry can serve as an indicator of phenotypic quality as well as genotypic quality (e.g. the ability to resist disease; see [3] for review). Consistent with this proposal, more asymmetric men and women have been found to report more health problems [4], although not all studies have found a relationship between symmetry and health [5]. Both studies of real faces [6 – 9] * Author for correspondence (anthony.little@stir.ac.uk). Received 10 September 2010 Accepted 10 November 2010 and recent studies manipulating symmetry [10 – 13] provide evidence that symmetry is indeed found attractive. While subtle facial asymmetries significantly impact on attractiveness, the relationship is not strong (e.g. [1]). Masculine facial traits (large jaws, prominent brows) in males are thought to be testosterone-dependent and, consequently, may represent an honest immunocompetence handicap signalling quality [14]. Indeed, masculinefaced men do report having lower incidence of disease [4] and better medical health [15]. Although there is some evidence that masculine male faces are found attractive (e.g. [6,16,17]), several studies have shown that feminine faces and faces of low dominance are also attractive [18 – 20]. This suggests that judgements of male facial attractiveness may depend on more than just cues to ‘good genes’ for immunocompetence (e.g. [21]). In women, facial attractiveness correlates with body attractiveness [22] and oestrogen-dependent characteristics of the female body correlate with health and reproductive fitness [23]. Increasing the sexual dimorphism of female faces should therefore enhance attractiveness as oestrogen also affects facial growth [24]. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that feminine female faces and faces of women with high oestrogen are considered attractive (e.g. [25]). Studies measuring facial features from photographs of women [6,26,27] and studies manipulating 2032 This journal is q 2010 The Royal Society Downloaded from rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org on May 27, 2013 Cues to pathogens change preferences A. C. Little et al. feminine traits in both real [28] and composite [20] faces all indicate that femininity increase the attractiveness of female faces. Overall, there is support for the notion that sexual dimorphism and symmetry in faces advertise some aspects of quality and are preferred. Indeed, symmetry and sexual dimorphism are correlated in male and female faces [29], and preferences for these characteristics in opposite-sex faces are positively correlated [30]. Importantly, systematic variation is seen in preferences for these facial cues. Previous studies have examined preference for masculine and feminine traits in faces showing that, at least in women, preferences can change between individuals according to condition (as measured by self-perceived and rated attractiveness [10,31]) and partnership status [20], within individuals according to hormonal fluctuations (e.g. across the menstrual cycle [32 – 34]) and within individuals according to the temporal context of relationship (short- versus long-term [21]). Women prefer relatively more masculine-faced men when they think themselves attractive, when they already have a partner, at peak fertility in the menstrual cycle and when rating for short-term relationships. These findings have been interpreted as consistent with the idea that masculinity in male faces is associated with good genes (i.e. they advertise genetic quality [1]), as these are conditions under which we might expect women to be most attentive to potentially heritable genetic benefits. While less studied, similar results indicating individual differences in preference have been seen for men judging female faces [35 – 37] and for men and women judging symmetry [10,33,38]. The reason for individual variation in attraction to masculinity and symmetry may lie in a trade-off between genetic quality and investment [21,39]. High-quality individuals may invest less in each partner (and offspring) or be more likely to cheat on/desert partners. Highquality individuals may not make ideal long-term partners in a species such as humans with extended parental investment [40,41]. For example, high-testosterone men are less likely to marry, more likely to divorce and have more marital problems than lower-testosterone men [42], and masculine-faced men are also perceived as poor-quality parents [20]. Previous studies have mainly focused on individual differences based on factors intrinsic to the choosing individuals (e.g. physical attractiveness), but we may also expect variation according to extrinsic ecological conditions that influence the relative value of high parental investment versus good-gene/ high-fertility benefits from partners. For example, the degree of harshness and pathogen stress in the environment an individual inhabits might influence the trade-off between a high-investing partner and one with good genes, as it is known to influence reproductively important outcomes and processes such as the age of childbearing, sperm concentration and quality, coital frequency, menstrual and hormonal cyclicity, fertility, birth rates, and breast milk supply [43 – 46]. Under conditions of low resources, a preference for an investing partner via a low-mating-effort/high-parentalinvestment strategy may be adaptive, whereas under conditions of relatively high resources, a choice for ‘good genes’ via a high-mating-effort/low-parental-investment strategy may be a better option [47,48]. For example, in Proc. R. Soc. B (2011) 2033 a ‘harsh’ environment that has low resource availability, having a stable partner may be of increased importance, particularly for women during pregnancy, as the resources to raise a child may be scarce or difficult to acquire. Thus, two parents to provide the resources necessary for offspring survival and eventual reproduction may be better than one. Likewise, safe environments that have high resource availability may favour the choice of good genes, as an individual can acquire the resources they need themselves. Essentially, there may be little gain in terms of offspring survival/reproduction by the additional effort of a second parent. Alternatively, in a harsh environment where high extrinsic mortality is greater, such as in high-pathogenrisk populations, the probability of offspring survival and eventual reproduction decreases. Consequently, there may be few benefits to attracting an attentive/investing partner, because individuals may maximize their reproductive output by focusing on acquiring good genes for their offspring to be able to thrive in the hostile environment (e.g. [49,50]). However, in an environment with low mortality rates, the probability of offspring survival and eventual reproduction is greater, and thus choosing an investing partner aids in channelling those resources to the care of relatively few, competitive offspring [49,50]. Recent cross-cultural studies have examined these issues by testing for variation in preferences across cultures varying in environmental stressors. Penton-Voak et al. [51] found stronger preferences for male masculinity in Jamaicans than in the UK and Japan. They suggested that a higher pathogen prevalence may result in increased preferences for masculinity in male faces, as it has been shown that pathogen load is positively related to the importance of physical attractiveness in mate choice across different cultures [52] and that masculinity is preferred more under conditions where women may acquire genetic benefits to offspring [21,32]. The Hadza, a tribe of African hunter – gatherers, have been found to exhibit stronger preferences for facial symmetry than do participants in the UK [38]. Following the same logic as Penton-Voak et al. [51], a difference in pathogen load between samples may also explain increased preferences for symmetry in the Hadza because individuals close to the equator have higher pathogen loads [53] and outdoor living is likely to increase exposure to pathogens. A more recent study examined a larger cross-cultural sample of 30 countries, calculating both the average female preference for male facial masculinity and a composite health index derived from World Health Organization statistics [54]. This study found that poorer health (i.e. higher mortality and incidence of disease) was related to stronger female preferences for male masculinity [54]. Consistent with these studies, DeBruine et al. [55] also demonstrated a correlation between women’s preference for masculine male face shape and sensitivity to pathogen disgust. Women who were more disgusted by pathogens showed stronger preferences for masculine male faces, while no such relationship was found for moral or sexual disgust. This study suggests that individual differences in sensitivity to pathogens may explain some variation in women’s masculinity preferences within a culture. Downloaded from rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org on May 27, 2013 2034 A. C. Little et al. Cues to pathogens change preferences Results from all of these studies indicate that prevalence of and sensitivity to pathogens are potentially important determinants of mate preferences, but these studies are correlational and do not address how such associations arise. Indeed, a re-analysis of the data presented in DeBruine et al. [54] suggested that factors associated with male–male competition (e.g. homicide rates) might also be associated with variation in preferences for masculinity in women across cultures [56]. The current study tested for a mechanism by which such variable preferences may come about by examining the effect of exposure to visual cues to pathogens on symmetry and masculinity/femininity preferences in both men and women. Following demonstrations that preferences for cues of genetic quality are higher in cultures with higher pathogen stress and among women who are particularly sensitive to pathogens, we hypothesized that exposure to visual cues to pathogens would increase women’s preference for masculine- and symmetricfaced men, and men’s preference for feminine- and symmetric-faced women. (a) (b) 2. METHODS (a) Participants One hundred and twenty-four women (aged between 17 and 45 years, mean ¼ 24.8, s.d. ¼ 6.6) and 117 men (aged between 17 and 45 years, mean ¼ 26.9, s.d. ¼ 7.4) took part in the study. Participants were selected for being older than 16 and less than 46 years of age and reporting to be heterosexual. Participants were recruited for the study online via a research-based website (www.alittlelab.com) and the study was conducted online. Previous research has shown that systematic variation in men’s and women’s face preferences observed in online studies is very similar to that seen in laboratory studies (e.g. [33,37,57]). (b) Stimuli All images were photographs of white individuals (aged between 18 and 25) without spectacles or obvious facial hair. Photographs were taken under standardized lighting conditions and with participants posing with a neutral expression. To equate size, all images were aligned to standardize the position of the pupils in the image. As we are testing whether exposure to pathogen-related stimuli can shift preferences, it is important that preferences for sexually dimorphic shape and symmetry are not at ceiling. Therefore, our manipulations are purposefully subtle. (c) Sexually dimorphic shape To measure preferences for sexually dimorphic features, we used pairs of composite face images. The pairs comprised one masculinized and one feminized version of the same face (figure 1). Images were manufactured from 50 young adult Caucasian male and 50 female photographs. Composite images, composed of multiple images of different individuals, were used as base faces (10 male and 10 female composite images each made of five individual images). The composite images were made by creating an average image made up of five randomly assigned individual facial photographs [19] (this technique has been used to create composite images in previous studies; see [58,59]). Faces were transformed on a sexual dimorphism dimension using the linear difference between a composite of all 50 male faces and a composite of all 50 female faces (following the technique reported by Perrett et al. [20]). Transforms Proc. R. Soc. B (2011) Figure 1. (a) Feminized (left) and masculinized (right) male faces. (b) Symmetric (left) and asymmetric (right) male faces. represented +50 per cent of the difference between these two composites (100\% would re ... Purchase answer to see full attachment