↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for Genetic Variation in Human Mate Preferences for Sexually Dimorphic Physical Traits

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evidence for Genetic Variation in Human Mate Preferences for Sexually Dimorphic Physical Traits
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin J. H. Verweij, Andrea V. Burri, Brendan P. Zietsch

Abstract

Intersexual selection has been proposed as an important force in shaping a number of morphological traits that differ between human populations and/or between the sexes. Important to these accounts is the source of mate preferences for such traits, but this has not been investigated. In a large sample of twins, we assess forced-choice, dichotomous mate preferences for height, skin colour, hair colour and length, chest hair, facial hair, and breast size. Across the traits, identical twins reported more similar preferences than nonidentical twins, suggesting genetic effects. However, the relative magnitude of estimated genetic and environmental effects differed greatly and significantly between different trait preferences, with heritability estimates ranging from zero to 57%.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Romania 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Lecturer 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2022.
All research outputs
#677,888
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#9,376
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,666
of 180,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#161
of 4,728 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,728 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.