WOMEN who think that men are dangerous to their children prefer more feminine male partners, according to new research from the University of St Andrews.
The study, carried out by scientists at the university’s School of Psychology and Neuroscience Perception Lab, found that the more women agree with the statement “men are dangerous to their children”, the more they preferred less masculine male faces.
The work, published this week by the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, is the first to find that women’s face preferences are influenced by experiences and perceptions of violence.
The study measured the preferences of men and women from the capital city of Colombia, Bogota, and surrounding small towns, and also asked them several questions related to health, access to media, education, and exposure to violence.
Colombia was chosen as the test site because it is one of the most violent nations in the world; in 2012, its homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 30.8 compared to 1.0 in the UK. The research was carried out by scientists Martha Lucia Borras-Guevara, Dr Carlota Batres and Professor David Perrett.
Borras-Guevara, who led the research, said: “We found that men and women who strongly believed that men are dangerous to their children preferred less masculine male faces, although this effect was only significant for women. We might have only found a significant effect for women’s preferences since women, relative to men, invest more time and energy in their offspring, hence there would be a strong selective pressure to recognise any facial cues in men that relate to a violent or dangerous disposition.”
Batres added: “More masculine men have been found to be more aggressive and therefore, in places where partner violence is high, women would benefit from preferring more feminine male partners.”
In the coming weeks, only subscribers will be able to comment on The National articles. Subscribe now or log in to make sure you stay a part of the conversation.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions. What should we do with our second vote in 2021? What happens if Westminster says no to indyref2?
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversation, register under fake names, and post vile abuse. We’ve had hundreds of emails from you complaining about this, asking us to take steps to ensure that these people aren’t given a platform on our site.
We’re listening to you, and here’s how we plan to make that happen.
We have decided to make the ability to comment only available to our 10,000 paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them.
We’ll be monitoring this change over the first few weeks, and we’re keen to know your thoughts. Email us at letters@thenational.scot if you want to have your say.
Callum Baird, Editor of The National