Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30833635›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Women's preferences for men's facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions.

Urszula M Marcinkowska, Markus J Rantala, Anthony J Lee, Mikhail V Kozlov, Toivo Aavik, Huajian Cai, Jorge Contreras-Garduño, Oana A David, Gwenaël Kaminski, Norman P Li and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Women's Preferences for Strong Men Under Perceived Harsh Versus Safe Ecological Conditions.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mate assessment based on physical characteristics: a review and reflection.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Urszula M MarcinkowskaJagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Markus J RantalaDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Anthony J LeeDivision of Psychology, University of Stirling, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8288-3393
Mikhail V KozlovDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Toivo AavikInstitute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Turku, Estonia.
Huajian CaiInstitute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, P. R. China.
Jorge Contreras-GarduñoENES campus Morelia, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico city, Mexico.
Oana A DavidDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Gwenaël KaminskiCLLE, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UT2J, Toulouse, 31058, France.
Norman P LiSchool of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore.
Ike E OnyishiDepartment of Psychology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Keshav PrasaiUniglobe H.S.S/College, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Farid PazhoohiDepartment of Basic Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Pavol ProkopDepartment of Biology, Trnava University, Trnava, Slovakia.
Sandra L Rosales CardozoDepartment of Psychology, University of Ibague, Department of Psychology, New York, Colombia.
Nicolle SydneyDepartment of Zoology, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Hirokazu TaniguchiDepartment of Educational Psychology, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.
Indrikis KramsInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Barnaby J W DixsonSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. b.dixson@uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The strength of sexual selection on secondary sexual traits varies depending on prevailing economic and ecological conditions. In humans, cross-cultural evidence suggests women's preferences for men's testosterone dependent masculine facial traits are stronger under conditions where health is compromised, male mortality rates are higher and economic development is higher. Here we use a sample of 4483 exclusively heterosexual women from 34 countries and employ mixed effects modelling to test how social, ecological and economic variables predict women's facial masculinity preferences. We report women's preferences for more masculine looking men are stronger in countries with higher sociosexuality and where national health indices and human development indices are higher, while no associations were found between preferences and indices of intra-sexual competition. Our results show that women's preferences for masculine faces are stronger under conditions where offspring survival is higher and economic conditions are more favorable.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorFaceMasculinityPhysical Appearance, BodyCultural CharacteristicsEcological and Environmental PhenomenaFemaleHeterosexualityHumansMaleSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID30833635
PMCPMC6399235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.