Evolutionary psychologists suggest that a preference for sexually dimorphic traits in human faces is an adaptation for mate choice, because such traits reflect health during development. For male faces, this claim rests on the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis, which states that the increased testosterone levels needed to develop large masculine traits stress the immune system. We examined whether masculine traits in adolescent male faces are associated with health during development, and also whether feminine traits in adolescent female faces signal health. Feminine traits are attractive, but it is less clear whether they should signal health. Rated masculinity in adolescent male faces correlated modestly with actual health, and was perceived as healthy, but not as attractive. Rated femininity in adolescent female faces did not correlate with actual health, although it was perceived as healthy and attractive. These results support the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis for male faces in that masculine traits signalled health during adolescence. However, they suggest that any health-related evolutionary benefits obtained from preferences for attractive facial traits may be weak.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 September 2025.
All research outputs
#4,130,413
of 34,358,242 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#5,630
of 12,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,155
of 76,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#17
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,358,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 76,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
