عدم ارتباط بین هوش و جذابیت صورت در یک نمونه بزرگ آموزنده ژنتیکی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|35649||2015||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 36, Issue 3, May 2015, Pages 240–247
Theories in both evolutionary and social psychology suggest that a positive correlation should exist between facial attractiveness and general intelligence, and several empirical observations appear to corroborate this expectation. Using highly reliable measures of facial attractiveness and IQ in a large sample of identical and fraternal twins and their siblings, we found no evidence for a phenotypic correlation between these traits. Likewise, neither the genetic nor the environmental latent factor correlations were statistically significant. We supplemented our analyses of new data with a simple meta-analysis that found evidence of publication bias among past studies of the relationship between facial attractiveness and intelligence. In view of these results, we suggest that previously published reports may have overestimated the strength of the relationship and that the theoretical bases for the predicted attractiveness–intelligence correlation may need to be reconsidered.
Some evolutionary models predict that traits contributing to survival or reproductive success will tend to be positively correlated (Hansen, 2006 and Rowe and Houle, 1996; but, see Falconer and Mackay, 1996 and Lerner, 1954). Examples of such positive correlations have been observed in humans [IQ and sperm quality: Arden, Gottfredson, Miller, and Pierce (2009); IQ and height: Keller et al. (2013); birth rate, completed family size, and age at last childbirth: Kosova, Abney, and Ober (2010)], animals [energy storage and metabolic activity in Drosophila melanogaster: Clark (1990); body weight across environmental niches in Alsophila pometaria: Futuyma and Philippi (1987); activity metabolism and locomotor performance in Thamnophilis sirtalis: Garland (1988)], and plants [size and pest resistance in Ipomoea purpurea: Rausher and Simms (1989); life history and morphological traits in Holcus lanatus: Billington, Mortimer, and McNeilly (1988); life history and morphological traits in Impatiens capensis: Mitchell-Olds (1986)]. There are two basic types of explanation for why these correlations occur. One is that the conditions in the environment, such as pathogen levels or the availability of adequate nutrition, have similar effects on both of the correlated traits ( Møller, 1997). The other is that the phenotypic correlation is caused by a correlation between the effects of the alleles influencing the two traits ( Falconer & Mackay, 1996). Genetic correlations, in turn, can come about in two principal ways. One is pleiotropy, whereby a gene affects multiple phenotypic characters. Pleiotropy is a common property of genes (Falconer & Mackay, 1996) and is a proposed explanation for genetic correlations between a large number of medical (Flint and Mackay, 2009 and Solovieff et al., 2013) and psychological (Kovas and Plomin, 2006 and Lee et al., 2013) traits, many of which appear to be highly polygenic (e.g., Davies et al., 2011, Purcell et al., 2009 and Stahl et al., 2012). Antagonistic pleiotropy, whereby alleles that improve one fitness-related trait deteriorate another fitness-related trait, can lead to stable genetic polymorphism and persistent negative genetic correlations between fitness-increasing traits. However, the conditions under which genetic polymorphism is maintained by antagonistic pleiotropy are restrictive (Hedrick, 1999 and Prout, 2000), and most investigations in non-human animals have found positive rather than negative correlations between fitness-increasing traits (Roff, 1997). On the other hand, to the degree that the genetic variation in directionally selected traits is due to the aggregate effects of deleterious mutations across many loci (Houle, 1998), genetic correlations between fitness-increasing traits should be positive. Under this scenario, pleiotropic loci that affect two or more fitness-increasing traits should tend to harbor common alleles that are favored by selection and rare mutations that are selected against because they negatively affect both traits. Even when the traits are affected by non-overlapping sets of genes, a second possible cause of genetic correlations is assortative mating on two or more traits simultaneously, which can lead to non-random associations between alleles at different loci (i.e., gametic phase disequilibrium; Crow & Felsenstein, 1968). To the degree that overall attractiveness is a composite of multiple sexually selected traits, positive assortment between mates on overall attractiveness necessarily implies positive cross-trait correlations between traits positively related to attractiveness. When this occurs, individuals who inherit alleles that increase the sexual attractiveness of one trait from one parent will be more likely to inherit alleles that increase the sexual attractiveness of the other trait from the other parent, leading to positive genetic correlations between sexually selected traits when scaled such that scores increase with attractiveness. Both intelligence (Miller, 2000) and facial attractiveness (Gangestad et al., 1994 and Thornhill and Gangestad, 1999) have been hypothesized to be sexually selected traits related to fitness, perhaps because their large mutational target sizes (Davies et al., 2011) reveal a partner's load of deleterious mutations (Gangestad and Yeo, 1997, Keller, 2007 and Miller, 2000). If so, then as described above, there are two basic explanations for why facial attractiveness and intelligence might be expected to be positively genetically correlated. First, because these traits are influenced by a large number of genes, there is likely to be some degree of overlap between them. While such overlap could lead to negative genetic correlations from antagonistic pleiotropy, the restrictive conditions under which antagonistic pleiotropy can maintain negative genetic correlations at equilibrium (Hedrick, 1999 and Prout, 2000) suggest that a better expectation is that pleiotropic loci lead to positive genetic correlations via transiently polymorphic, recurrent deleterious mutations that reduce both intelligence and facial attractiveness. Second, given that people rate both facial attractiveness and intelligence as desirable in romantic and sexual partners (Buss and Barnes, 1986, Buss et al., 1990 and Kenrick et al., 1990), it is also possible that cross-trait assortative mating (intelligent people choosing more facially attractive mates, and vice-versa) produces statistical associations between alleles affecting the two traits. These two possible causes of genetic correlations are not mutually exclusive; for example, Keller et al. (2013) used an extended twin-family design that accounted for the genetic effects of assortative mating to demonstrate that both processes contributed roughly equally to the genetic correlation between human height and IQ. Several social psychological theories also predict a correlation between intelligence and facial attractiveness. For instance, status generalization theory holds that visible characteristics affecting social status, including facial attractiveness, cause perceivers to generate matching expectations about other traits of the target (Jackson, Hunter, & Hodge, 1995)—for example, more attractive individuals are assumed to be more intellectually and socially competent, to have more integrity and compassion, and so on (Eagly et al., 1991 and Moore et al., 2011). Although this theory primarily predicts correlations between visible status cues and perceived levels of internal characteristics, Jackson et al. (1995) argue that, due to the more positive evaluations attractive individuals receive in social and intellectual contexts, they may also receive more opportunities to develop intellectual competence than unattractive individuals. Moreover, attractive individuals may form self-concepts based on social feedback that include notions of superior intellectual ability, potentially motivating intellectual achievement (L. A. Jackson et al., 1995). Thus, both social psychological and evolutionary considerations seem to predict, a priori, a positive phenotypic correlation between intelligence and facial attractiveness.