Environmental factors, such as pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity, are thought to influence mate preferences for traits related to health and resource provisioning potential. Specific body dimensions, such as women’s waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR), men’s shoulder-to-hip ratio (SHR), and body mass index (BMI) have also been theorised to be associated with health benefits, or ability to deal with resource scarcity. Here, we test across two studies using different study designs whether the effects of pathogen disgust sensitivity and socioeconomic status (SES; a negative proxy for resource scarcity) on mate preferences extends to men’s WHR preferences, women’s SHR preferences, and both sex’s BMI preferences. Study 1 found that pathogen disgust significantly negatively influenced men’s WHR preference in female bodies, while SES was significantly negatively associated with women’s SHR and BMI preferences in male bodies. Study 2 found that pathogen disgust negatively predicted men’s WHR preference, and positively predicted women’s SHR preference, while SES negatively predicted men’s WHR preference. Our findings support the notion that body shapes are used as cues to health and likelihood of resource provision, and may help explain inconsistencies in the literature regarding variation in body shapes preferences.
Mate choice is one of the most important predictors of evolutionary fitness (i.e., an individual’s contribution to the gene pool in the following generations). However, not all potential partners confer the same benefits and costs, and the importance of these benefits and costs vary depending of the circumstance. Therefore, it is evolutionarily beneficial to have a mechanism where individuals can perceive environmental factors and adjust their mate preferences towards partners that would be the most beneficial given the circumstances. Environmental factors, such as pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity, have been proposed to influence mate preferences for a variety of traits that are thought to be associated with health or resource provisioning potential, including physical attractiveness (Gangestad & Buss, 1993; Lee et al., 2013; Young, Sacco, & Hugenberg, 2011) sexual dimorphism (i.e., the masculinity of men and the femininity of women; DeBruine, Jones, Crawford, Welling, & Little, 2010; Jones, Fincher, Little, & DeBruine, 2013; Little, Cohen, Jones, & Belsky, 2007; Little, DeBruine, & Jones, 2011), and good parental traits (Lee et al., 2013; Lee & Zietsch, 2011).
Our findings provide some support to the notion that body shape is used as a cue to health and/or likelihood of resource provision. We note that some associations must be interpreted cautiously; despite all associations being in predicted directions across both studies, the significance of some effects was not consistent over the two studies.
