Effects of partner conception risk phase on male perception

of dominance in faces
Robert P. Burriss
4
, Anthony C. Little
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK
Initial receipt 16 November 2005; final revision received 4 January 2006
Abstract
Several studies have suggested that women may prefer to engage in extra-pair copulations with
males who appear dominant and to do so near ovulation. While there is some evidence that males
are more jealous of dominant rivals and more proprietary when their partners are near ovulation,
there is none that suggests the existence of counterstrategic perceptual shifts that mirror those seen
in women. We provide such evidence here. Composites of male faces that were either high or low in
rated dominance were presented to male participants who provided ratings of dominance. A three-
way interaction between stimulus-face dominance, partner conception risk phase, and partner oral
contraceptive use was found; men whose partners did not use an oral contraceptive and were in the
high conception risk phase of their cycle displayed increased dominance ratings of high-dominance
male faces. We conclude that males have evolved counterstrategies to deal with female infidelity that
include an overattribution of dominance to those rivals most likely to present a threat at times when
that threat is greatest. This overattribution is likely to lead to increases in jealousy and mate-
retention behaviors.
D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Dominance; Faces; Masculinity; Ovulation; Preference shift
1090-5138/06/$ see front matter D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.01.002
4 Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.P. Burriss).
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305
1. Introduction
There is accumulating evidence that womens preferences for male physical appearance
vary as a function of fertility status. When in the follicular phase of their cycle, women find
masculine-faced men more attractive (Johnston, Hagel, Franklin, Fink & Grammer, 2001;
Frost, 1994; Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton-Voak et al., 1999) and prefer the voices of
more masculine men (Puts, 2005) and the odor of more dominant and symmetrical men
(Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Havlicek, Roberts, & Flegr, 2005; Rikowski & Grammer,
1999; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999a, 1999b; Thornhill et al., 2003). Furthermore, women
express cycle-related shifts in their preference for personality traits and behaviors related to
masculinity and dominance, a pattern which has been shown to hold true even when controls
are made for the effects of male physical attractiveness (Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins,
Garver-Apgar, & Christensen, 2004).
It is argued that these findings are in line with evolutionary predictions because traits for
which women show cyclic preference shifts may be honest signals of immunological
competence (Flstad & Karter, 1992; Mueller & Mazur, 1997; Thornhill & Gangestad,
1999b), and females can only accrue heritable benefits from sexual partners if conception
follows copulation. Intriguingly, preference shifts seem only to occur in normally ovulating
women. The use of oral contraceptives has been shown to nullify preference shifts in both the
visual and olfactory modalities (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Penton-Voak et al., 1999).
A preference for males who display markers of genotypic superiority may lead women to
pursue a mixed mating strategy, whereby males with a more feminine appearance are secured
as long-term partners while males who appear more masculine are engaged as extra-pair
copulation (EPC) partners. In support of this hypothesis, women have been shown to be more
attracted to extra-pair males when fertile (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002). Women are
also more likely to visit a singles nightclub without a primary partner during the fertile phase
of their cycle (Grammer, Jutte, & Fischmann, 1997) and report a greater frequency of EPCs as
occurring at the follicular phase, though copulations with primary partners are spread more
evenly over the cycle (Bellis & Baker, 1990).
With human extra-pair paternity estimates ranging between 1% and 30% (MacIntyre &
Sooman, 1991), it seems unlikely that men would not have developed specific adaptations to
prevent their partners from engaging in EPCs. One such adaptation may be male sexual
jealousy, which is hypothesized to induce men to deter mates from seeking extra-pair partners
and/or to guard against the approaches of potential extra-pair partners (Buss & Shackelford,
1997; Goetz et al., 2005). Behaviors motivated by jealousy may be costly, both in terms of the
increased possibility of incurring injury at the hands of rival men and of causing a mate to
dissolve the partnership. Ancestrally, men may have benefited by being more sensitive to
those rivals who presented the greatest threat (i.e., masculine men). Because it is known that
men experience greater romantic jealousy if their rivals exhibit characteristics such as
physical and social dominance (Dijkstra & Buunk, 2001; 2002) and that jealousy provokes
mate-retention behaviors (Buss, 1988; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992), it is
possible that the overattribution of dominance to rivals who pose the greatest threat is a
cognitive precursor to romantic jealousy and mate-retention behaviors.
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 298
Men may also have benefited historically by an increased sensitivity to rivals at times
when the threat of partner infidelity was greatest (i.e., when their partners were in the
periovulatory phase). If an associated cost of mate guarding is the increased likelihood of a
partners desertion, a sensitivity to rivals that is uniformly high and does not vary with the
risk of partner infidelity would be maladaptive. Though ovulation is not conspicuously
advertised in humans, there is some evidence that men possess indirect knowledge of when
women are ovulating (Roberts et al., 2004; Singh & Bronstad, 2001). Therefore, counter-
adaptations that aim to prevent female engagement in EPCs at the periovulatory phase are
possible as well as desirable.
The current study attempted to test these hypotheses by examining the effect of partner
menstrual phase on mens ratings of dominance of composite male faces constructed from
images of men differing in rated dominance.
2. Method
2.1. Stimuli
Sixty-six male facial photographs, taken using a digital camera under standardized
conditions, were selected from a larger pool of pictures based on neutral expressions, closed
mouths, and no facial jewelry or hair covering the brow. Images were normalized on
interpupilary distance, cropped below the chin, and resampled to 400512 pixels.
All images were rated for dominance on a seven-point scale by 11 men (mean
age=26.18 years; S.D.=6.84). For the purposes of rating, a dominant person was defined
as someone who bappeared as though they could get what they wanted.Q Alpha reliability
coefficient was high (a=.755), demonstrating that participants were in agreement as to the
cues that signal a dominant appearance. The faces were then ranked according to mean
dominance scores and split into sets of three (three highest ranking, three next highest
ranking, and so on). The three faces in sets 1, 2, and 3 (high dominance) and 20, 21, and
22 (low dominance) were blended using computer graphics techniques (Tiddeman, Burt, &
Perrett, 2001) to give six composites that should theoretically differ in perceived dominance
(Fig. 1). Hereafter, composites shall be referred to by number: composite 1 was that derived
from the three most dominant faces and composite 22, that derived from the three least
dominant faces.
2.2. Participants
Participants were 110 heterosexual men with female partners, who were recruited via
advertisements made on a university computer network messaging system. The advertise-
ment directed participants to a webpage, which was accessible worldwide but was not
advertised elsewhere. The data of all participants who did not report whether their partner
used an oral contraceptive (five), or who stated they were unsure as to whether their partner
used an oral contraceptive (four), were omitted. The data of a further 27 participants who
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 299
were unable to provide a date (or who expressed uncertainty over a provided date) for the
onset of their partners previous or current menses were also omitted. Finally, to ensure that
the final sample comprised only participants who had been in a relationship with their
current partner for more than 1 month (i.e., been with their partner during a full menstrual
cycle), the data of one participant who reported a relationship length of 1 month and the data
of nine participants who did not report the length of their current relationship were also
omitted. This left a sample of 64 men (mean age=28.58 years; S.D.=8.97). Of the 64,
34 self-reported British nationality, and 59 described their ethnicity as bwhiteQ. All
participants were naRve as to the aims of the current investigation. No rewards were offered
for participation.
The partners of 33 of the participants fell into a bhigh risk of conceptionQ category based
on days since onset of last or current menses (defined below), and 31 fell into a blow risk of
conceptionQ category. Oral contraceptives were reported to be used by 16 women in each
bconception riskQ category.
2.3. Procedure and measures
Composites 13 and 2022 (a total of six images) were rated for dominance using a seven-
point Likert scale (1=not at all dominant, 7=very dominant). The definition of dominance
given was identical to that provided above. Composites were presented in a random order.
Each participants ratings of composites 13 were averaged to provide a mean dominance
score for faces high in dominance. An identical calculation was performed using ratings of
composites 2022 (low dominance).
Fig. 1. Composites based on male dominance judgments. (A) comprises the three faces with the highest
dominance scores (ranks 13), while (B) comprises the three faces with the lowest scores (ranks 6466). A further
four composites were created using faces ranking 68, 911, 5860, and 6163.
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 300
Fig. 2. Mean ratings of dominance applied to composites grouped by dominance (derived from previous ratings),
as a function of partner conception risk phase. (A) shows ratings made by males whose partners use an oral
contraceptive, while (B) shows the ratings made by males whose partners do not.
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 301
Participants also provided information on relationship length, whether or not their partner
used an oral contraceptive (men were given the options byes,Q bno,Q and bnot sureQ), and a
date for the onset of their partners previous or current menses. Where men reported onsets
using a number of days (e.g., b6 days agoQ), days since onset was coded as the number of
days quoted plus one (so a response of b6 days agoQ would mean the number of days since
onset, including that on which onset occurred, equaling 7). In addition, men were asked to
state how certain they were that their partners menses had begun on the day quoted.
Days since onset of partners previous or current menses was used to derive an index of
partners conception risk (after Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000). The partners of men who were
currently at days 715 of their cycle were classified as being at a high risk of conception.
All others were classed as being at a low risk of conception.
3. Results
A 222 repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare mean ratings of
dominance applied to composites in the two dominance sets (high/low) as a function of
bconception risk phaseQ (referring to partners conception risk, high/low) and boral
contraceptive useQ (of partner, yes/no). While those using oral contraception do not differ
in conception risk across the cycle, the same terminology is used here for comparison.
As composites had been selected for their differences in terms of perceived dominance, a
strong main effect of image dominance was evident [ F(1,60)=352.78; pb.001]. However,
there was no main effect of partner conception risk phase [ F(1,50)=2.75; p=.1]; neither were
there interactions between risk phase and image dominance [ F(1,60)=.12; p=.73] nor risk
phase and partner oral contraceptive use [ F(1,60)=.9; p=.35].
The three-way interaction between composite-face dominance, partner conception risk
phase, and partner oral contraceptive use was significant [ F(1,60)=6.55; p=.013] (see
Fig. 2). The interaction indicates that males whose partners use an oral contraceptive rate
faces similarly regardless of whether or not their partner is in the high or the low
conception risk phase, while males whose partners do not use an oral contraceptive apply
lower ratings of dominance to dominant faces, though only if their partner is at a low risk
of conceiving.
Separate analyses for participants whose partners did and did not use an oral contraceptive
were conducted: the interaction between composite-face dominance and partner conception
risk phase was not significant for males whose partners used an oral contraceptive
[ F(1,30)=2.65; p=.11], though it was marginally significant for males whose partners did
not [ F(1,30)=3.91; p=.057]. Independent samples t tests showed that men whose partners
used an oral contraceptive rated dominant faces, [t(30)= .54; p=.6] and submissive faces
[t(30)=1.55; p=.13] no differently as a function of partner conception risk phase, while men
whose partners did not use an oral contraceptive applied higher ratings to dominant faces if
their partner was at a high risk of conception than if she was at a lower risk [t(30)=.42;
p=.02]. There was no effect of risk phase on ratings of submissive faces made by males
whose partners did not use an oral contraceptive [t(30)=.09; p=.81].
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 302
4. Discussion
The current study shows that men whose partners are in the follicular phase of their cycles
perceive composite male faces constructed from images rated high in dominance to be more
dominant than do men whose partners are at other phases, though only if their partner does
not use an oral contraceptive.
These results are consistent with the prediction that men exhibit a condition-dependent
shift in their perceptions of rival males that mirror the preference shifts described in women
by previous studies. Rivals who pose the greatest threat (those with a dominant appearance)
are perceived as more dominant by men whose partners are at a high risk of conception than
by men whose partners are at a low risk of conception. That there were no significant
differences in the ratings of submissive composites as a function of partner menstrual phase
suggests that mens attentions are directed selectively towards those rivals with whom women
are most likely to commit EPCs. A more general shift which resulted in perceptions of greater
dominance in all male faces would be maladaptive in that it would prompt men to engage in
costly mate-retention behaviors at times when they would be inappropriate and may lead to
greater fitness costs than benefits.
The perception shift appears not to be dependent solely upon temporal indices of ovulation
(i.e., the occurrence of menses 1 to 2 weeks previously), as partner oral contraceptive use
interacted with composite-face dominance and partner conception risk phase. Possible cues to
ovulation in a partner may be found in her facial appearance or body odor and may be
mediated by increases in her attractiveness (Roberts et al., 2004; Singh & Bronstad, 2001).
This is a possibility that warrants further investigation, particularly in light of findings
suggesting that men who are partnered with more physically attractive women report using
mate retention tactics more frequently than do men who are not partnered with such women
(Goetz et al., 2005). Future studies that seek to determine the importance of focal male
attractiveness in partner cycle-related perception shifts may also be useful, given evidence
suggesting that women partnered with less attractive men report greater attraction to extra-
pair males than do women with mates who possess attractive traits (Gangestad, Thornhill, &
Garver-Apgar, 2005) and that men who do not possess valued traits experience greater
sensations of jealousy (Brown & Moore, 2003).
Examining ratings of a single trait in faces that had been manipulated to appear at opposite
ends of a continuum of that same trait is a limitation of the current study. It is possible that
ratings of other traits would differ as a function of manipulated dominance or that ratings of
dominance would differ should images be manipulated on some other trait, though no
conclusions can be drawn regarding this possibility.
Women using non-pill-based hormonal contraceptives were not incorporated into a general
group along with oral contraceptive users in the current study. Unpublished data on our
sample population suggest that approximately 60% of partnered women use a hormonal
contraceptive of some kind. Of the 110 partnered males in our original sample, 44.5%
reported that their partner used an oral contraceptive. Though males are likely to
underestimate partner pill use, this suggests that non-pill-based hormonal contraceptives
are used by around 15% of the partnered females in our study population. However, one
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 303
would expect that including males whose partners use a non-pill-based hormonal
contraceptive in our current sample of bmales whose partners do not use an oral
contraceptiveQ would drive our results away from significance and, therefore, our findings
are robust.
Future studies should seek to address these issues. Links should also be drawn between
perceptual shifts such as that which is described here and changes in male jealousy and mate-
guarding behaviors.
In summary, our results imply the existence of a context-dependent mechanism that
promotes male mate-retention behaviors. Such a mechanism should only be activated when
mate-retention behaviors are likely to result in fitness benefits that outweigh costs.
Activation should be influenced by several factors, including timing and traits of the
potential EPC partner that are related to the likelihood of an EPC occurrence. Because
women are more likely to engage in EPCs with dominant males and to do so when in the
periovulatory phase of their cycles, men should preferentially mate-guard against dominant
rivals at times when their partners are most fertile. The current study, which shows that
men overattribute dominance, a characteristic related to jealousy (Dijkstra & Buunk, 2001;
2002) and, hence, to mate-retention behavior (Buss, 1988; Buss et al., 1992), to composite
faces created from images of individuals rated high in dominance, when their partners are
at a high risk of conception and do not use an oral contraceptive, suggests that this may be
the case.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers and H. M. Rowland for their helpful
comments, D. I. Perrett and B. P. Tiddeman for the use of the Psychomorph program, and
D. M. Burt for the use of his Internet server. A. C. L. is supported by the Royal Society.
References
Bellis, M. A., & Baker, R. R. (1990). Do females promote sperm competition? Data for humans. Animal
Behaviour, 40, 997999.
Brown, W. M., & Moore, C. (2003). Fluctuating asymmetry and romantic jealousy. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 24, 113117.
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 9, 291317.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution,
physiology and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251255.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346361.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of a rivals body build.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 335341.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 829852.
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 304
Fblstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males and the immunocompetence handicap. American
Naturalist, 139, 603622.
Frost, P. (1994). Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: Preliminary
assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 507514.
Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E., & Christensen, P. N. (2004). Womens
preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15,
203207.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in womens preference for the scent of
symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 262, 727733.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in womens sexual interests and their partners
mate retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London Series B, 269, 975982.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Womens sexual interests across the ovulatory
cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series
B, 272, 20232027.
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Weekes-Shakelford, V. A., Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., Schmitt, D. P., & LaMunyon,
C. W. (2005). Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: A preliminary investigation
of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 749763.
Grammer, K., Jutte, A., & Fischmann, B. (1997). Der kampf der geschlechter und der krieg der signale. In B.
Karnitscheider (Ed.), Liebe, Lust, und Leidenschaft. Sexualitat im Spiegal der Wissenschaft (pp. 935).
Stuttgart7 Hirzel.
Havlicek, J., Roberts, S. C., & Flegr, J. (2005). Womens preference for dominant male odour: Effects of
menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters, 1, 256259.
Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for
hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 251267.
MacIntyre, S., & Sooman, A. (1991). Nonpaternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet, 338, 869871.
Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1997). Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality.
Behavioural Ecology, 8, 569579.
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclicallyfurther evidence.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 3948.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, DI., Castles, D., Burt, M., Koyabashi, T., & Murray, L. K. (1999). Menstrual cycle
alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741742.
Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect womens preferences for male voice pitch.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388397.
Rikowski, A., & Grammer, K. (1999). Human body odour, symmetry and attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London Series B, 266, 869874.
Roberts, S. C., Havlicek, J., Flegr, J., Hruskova, M., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., & Petrie, M. (2004).
Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London Series B, 271(Suppl ), S270S272.
Singh, D., & Bronstad, P. M. (2001). Female body odour is a potential cue to ovulation. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London Series B, 268, 797801.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999a). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 452460.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999b). The scent of symmetry: A human pheromone that signals fitness?
Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 175201.
Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., Miller, R., Scheyd, G., McCollough, J. K., & Franklin, M. (2003). Major
histocompatibility complex genes, symmetry, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behavioral
Ecology, 14, 668678.
Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial texture for perception
research. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21, 4250.
R.P. Burriss, A.C. Little / Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 297305 305