Relational insecurity heightens sensitivity to limbal rings in partnered women

Abstract

Limbal rings augment perceived facial health and attractiveness. We thus expected sensitivity to their presence would depend on motives to seek alternative relationship partners among those feeling insecure about a current pairbond. Despite partnered women's relative insensitivity to good gene cues, partnered women feeling relationally dissatisfied might heighten acuity toward limbal rings. We primed single and partnered women with secure or insecure attachment before evaluating the health of male and female faces with and without limbal rings. Insecurity‐primed partnered women demonstrated greater perceptual acuity toward limbal rings than security‐primed partnered women; this sensitivity was reduced in single women. Findings contribute to literature implicating limbal rings as a health cue, demonstrating how dissatisfaction of mating goals modulates preferences for facial features.

Functional perceptions of relational success and infidelity concerns for violators of gendered naming conventions in marriage

“…High-HS women’s perceptions of women’s relational success and infidelity, particularly among women who keep their surname, could similarly reflect intrasexual competition in which they seek derogate women who could pose greater threats to a relationship (Fisher, 2004). Indeed, women demonstrate considerable vigilance toward cues in women that would implicate them as promiscuous, particularly when concerned about relational insecurity (Brown et al, 2020a; Krems et al, 2020). The more consistent effects of women’s perceptions toward female targets without information for their decision could reflect high-HS women’s responses being primarily rooted in intrasexual competition concerns.…”

Functional inferences of mating orientations through body fat and sex-typical body features

“…We recruited 312 undergraduates for course credit from a public university in Northwest Arkansas. Seventeen participants were excluded from final analyses for reporting non-opposite-sex attraction or being over 40 (Brown et al, 2020). This decision served to reduce variability in reproductive goals that could influence findings ( n Final = 295; 208 women, 87 men; M Age = 18.82, SD = 1.32; 79.7% White, 7.8% Hispanic, 5.8% Asian, 4.7% Black, 2% Other; 270 heterosexual, 25 bisexual).…”

Preliminary evidence for an aversion to atheists in long-term mating domains in the Southern United States

“…I excluded four participants from analyses for not reporting heterosexual attraction, as participants evaluated opposite-sex targets. Participants in both studies were specifically recruited for being in a typical reproductive window of 18–40 years of age, given the onset of menopause occurring as early as 41 (Brown et al, 2020b; te Velde & Pearson, 2002). The final sample was 106 (58 women, 48 men; M Age = 19.31, SD = 1.93, Range = 18–35; 85.8% White, 9.4% Hispanic, 2.8% Black, 1.9% Other; 102 identified as heterosexual, 4 identified as bisexual).…”