Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Theory and some evidence suggest that masculine characteristics (e.g., lower pitched voice) will predict indices of men’s long-term health. In a related finding, researchers have demonstrated that the attractiveness of individuals predicts variation in their mate preferences. As self-perceived attractiveness may predict sociosexuality (i.e., the willingness of individuals to engage in restricted or unrestricted sexual relationships), we investigated how self-rated attractiveness and sociosexuality influence preferences regarding male voices among 338 gay men across different cities in China. Each participant was randomly presented with six pairs of male voices and gave preferences using a forced-choice method; each pair of male voices consisted of a masculine (lower pitched) and feminine (higher pitched) version of the same original voice. Our findings suggested that gay men who perceived themselves as more attractive showed stronger preference for lower pitched voices compared with self-perceived less attractive individuals. In addition, we found that gay men’s sociosexuality score was positively correlated with their preference for masculine cues in male voices, indicating that gay men who were less sociosexually restricted preferred lower pitched voices over higher pitched versions compared with men who were more restricted. Our study presents evidence contributing to a better understanding of condition-dependent strategies of partner choice in gay men.

Keywords

self-rated attractiveness sociosexuality masculinity voice preference mate value

In humans, male vocal masculinity (e.g., lower voice pitch) is significantly related to testosterone levels in both puberty and adulthood (Dabbs & Mallinger, 1999; Harries, Hawkins, Hacking, & Hughes, 1998), although several studies have found no association between testosterone levels and voice pitch (e.g., Arnocky, Hodges-Simeon, Ouellette, & Albert, 2018; Skrinda et al., 2014). Testosterone has immunosuppressant effects, meaning that only men with more efficient immune systems can better afford the immunosuppressive effects (Folstad & Karter, 1992). Consequently, masculine voices in men which depend on testosterone are considered by some researchers to be cues to heritable genetic health (Feinberg, 2008; Hodges-Simeon, Gurven, & Gaulin, 2015; Puts, Jones, & DeBruine, 2012). However, evidence for such an association is somewhat equivocal. For instance, one recent study found that facial masculinity, which also depends on testosterone, does not reflect immunocompetence as measured by heterozygosity at the major histocompatibility complex (Zaidi et al., 2019). The potential benefits of mating with relatively masculine men may extend beyond those of health and genetic immunity. Low male voice pitch may convey better hunting ability (Apicella & Feinberg, 2009), better ability to accumulate resources (Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004), social dominance (Puts, Gaulin, & Verdolini, 2006), and more likelihood to attain higher social position (Klofstad, Anderson, & Peters, 2012). However, there also exists negative characteristics of men with lower pitched voices. For example, women perceive these men as less likely to be sexually faithful (O’Connor, Re, & Feinberg, 2011), invest time and effort into romantic relationships, or be financially generous with their romantic partners (O’Connor, Fraccaro, & Feinberg, 2012); indeed, empirically, men with lower pitched voices have been found to have greater numbers of sexual partners (Puts, 2005).

Based on benefits and costs in women’s partner preference, previous studies have demonstrated that mate choice criteria are condition-dependent. Humans might show preference based on condition or on self-perception of their value as mates. Mate value in romantic relationships shows the qualities desired in a mate by the opposite sex, which may be one factor guiding individuals’ mating-relevant behavior (Arnocky, 2018). There will be a fundamental trade-off in which the qualities that one prefers in a partner depend on one’s own condition or environmental conditions because few men exhibit all of the qualities that would be optimally desired in a mate, and hence, these men might be difficult for most women to attract and retain (Gangestad, Garver-Apgar, & Simpson, 2007; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). For example, in a long-term mating strategy, women tend to prefer men with indicators of investment (e.g., resources and resources acquisition potential; Buss & Schmitt, 1993), being a good partner (e.g., being loving and loyal to one’s partner), and parenting proclivities (e.g., desire for home and children, raising children well; Arnocky, 2018), whereas in a short-term mating strategy, they pay more attention to good-gene indicators (e.g., physical attractiveness, masculinity, muscularity, and symmetry; Gangestad et al., 2007). In general, humans coordinate mating in terms of overall mate value (“10’s tend to mate with 10’s and 5’s tend to mate with 5’s,” Buss & Shackelford, 2008). Some particularly high mate value females should be able to attract males who exhibit good genes, good investment, and parenting indicators. Past research indicates that high mate value women tend to prefer high mate value partners probably because they have better ability to attract and retain them relative to low mate value women, while low mate value women choose low mate value men perhaps because these men are less likely to desert them or to provide more investment into their relationship compared with high mate value men (Little, Burt, Penton-Voak, & Perrett, 2001). For example, there are studies indicating that compared with low mate value men, men with high mate value (i.e., masculine or attractive men) spend more time in short-term relationships (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), while they may be more willing to invest in or not desert women with high mate value (Kandrik & Debruine, 2012; Little, Jones, & Debruine, 2011).

Individuals with high mate value (e.g., attractiveness) tend to prefer sex-typical traits, such as secondary sexual characteristics, compared with low mate value individuals (Feinberg et al., 2012; Vukovic et al., 2008). Physical attractiveness is an important component of mate value (N. P. Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002), and many studies indeed show that heterosexual female and homosexual men’s preferences for male masculinity are highly dependent on it. For example, women who perceive themselves as more physically attractive (Little et al., 2001) or have attractive characteristics such as higher pitched voices (Vukovic et al., 2010) and lower waist-to-hip ratio (WHR; Smith et al., 2009) reported stronger preference for masculine men; similarly, women who self-perceive as being more attractive (Feinberg et al., 2012; Vukovic et al., 2008) or were rated more attractive by men (Penton-Voak et al., 2003) tended to prefer lower pitched voices or masculine faces in males. Research on individual differences in gay men’s preferences for masculinity typically suggests that masculine traits may transmit cues about the underlying quality of the sender (e.g., testosterone level), similar to the case for heterosexual men (Feinberg, 2008; Saxton, Caryl, & Roberts, 2006) and that their preference is also influenced by their relative value on the mating market. For example, Valentová, Roberts, and Havlíček (2013) demonstrated that gay men who rate themselves as more masculine tend to prefer lower pitched male voices and those who self-rate as being more attractive significantly preferred more masculine male faces. Such condition-dependent preferences were consistent with studies of heterosexuals, suggesting that regardless of orientation, more attractive individuals showed more preference for preferred-sex-typical characteristics relative to less attractive ones. At the same time, men with lower pitched voices tend to have more sexual partners and spend less time or effort in their romantic relationships (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Puts, 2005). Thus, from that point of view, it will also be adaptive for low mate value gay men to show a preference for males with similar mate value to them, who may not desert them and may offer their romantic relationships greater potential investment and try harder to be a good partner than high mate value males do. This result also accords with assortative mating theory (Burley, 1983). Up to the present, however, few studies have directly tested the association between gay men’s self-perceived attractiveness and their preferences for masculine characteristics in other men, especially in the domain of voice. In our study, we will further discuss this relationship.

Sociosexuality refers to the willingness of individuals to engage in restricted or unrestricted sexual relationships, measured most commonly by the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008); it is an important mate value that influences individuals’ mate preference. Compared to individuals with restricted sociosexual orientation, unrestricted individuals usually engage in more short-term mating or extra-pair copulations. Because the costs of choosing a masculine mate, such as lower relationship and lower parental investment (Gray, Parkin, & Samms-Vaughan, 2007; van Anders, Hamilton, & Watson, 2007) or proneness to male-on-female aggression in romantic relationships (Y. Li et al., 2014) are lower for short-term than for long-term relationships, more unrestricted women may demonstrate stronger preference for masculine men than will more restricted women (Glassenberg, Feinberg, Jones, Little, & DeBruine, 2010). For example, women who are interested in unrestricted sexual behaviors tend to prefer more masculine features in male faces and bodies (Provost, Kormos, Kosakoski, & Quinsey, 2006). Another study, consistent with the above results, shows that women’s sociosexuality score and positive attitudes toward uncommitted sex were significantly positively correlated with their masculinity preference in male voices (O’Connor et al., 2014). However, there were also conflicting results. Boothroyd and Brewer (2014) study confirmed that self-reported impulsivity, instead of sociosexuality, was the main explanation for women’s facial masculinity preference.

Gay men’s preferences for masculine cues in other men may also be context dependent by sociosexuality. Past study revealed that the sexual desire of gay women was positively correlated with their preference for sex-typical sexually dimorphic traits in faces of both sexes (Lippa, 2007), or for exaggerated dimorphic traits in opposite sex faces only (Welling, Singh, Puts, Jones, & Burriss, 2013). Similarly, gay men’s scores for sexual desire significantly predicted their preference for exaggerated sex-typical shape cues in own-sex but not opposite-sex faces (Welling et al., 2013). Moreover, other studies have found that it is sociosexual attitude that predict gay men’s male facial masculinity preference (Glassenberg et al., 2010). Building on these works, researchers have demonstrated that the relationship between gay men’s masculinity preference and sociosexual orientation differs between different sex roles. There are three commonly recognized sexual self-labels among gay men: Those who self-label as “top” prefer the insertive role, who self-label as “bottom” prefer the receptive role, and who self-label as “versatile” prefer neither (Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000). Zheng, Hart, and Zheng (2013) showed that tops with less restricted sexual behaviors preferred more feminine male faces, bottoms with less restricted sexual behaviors preferred more masculine male faces, and no association between sociosexuality and male facial masculinity preference was found in versatiles. Here, we examined the relationship between sociosexuality and masculinity preference in the domain of voice in gay men. Following previous research linking sociosexuality to facial masculinity preference in gay men, we predicted that gay men with higher sociosexuality scores would show stronger preference for masculine voices in other males.

The Present Study

In light of the above discussion, physical attractiveness is a cardinal component of individuals’ mate value, and our study contributes to the literature by examining how self-rated attractiveness as well as self-reported sociosexuality is associated with the strength of gay men’s preference for masculine male voices. We hypothesized that gay men’s self-rated attractiveness and self-reported sociosexuality would positively, significantly predict their vocal masculinity preference. Our study provides new evidence to test the relationships of gay men’s self-perceived attractiveness, sociosexuality, and masculinity preference across the domain of voice, contributing to future study on mate value and mate choice.

Method

Participants

Three hundred and thirty-eight gay men from China aged 16–51 years participated in our present study. All participants volunteered for the online survey and were selected because they self-reported as gay men. Demographic data are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.
Sample Characteristics of Gay Men in China.

Variables Gay Men (n = 338)

Age (in years) M (SD) 24.72 (6.27)

Education level N (%)

Junior high school or less 15 (4.4)

Senior high school 41 (12.2)

College 254 (75.1)

Postgraduate or higher 28 (8.3)

Occupation N (%)

Students 138 (40.8)

Employed 170 (50.3)

Job waiting 13 (3.8)

Other 17 (5.1)

Relationship N (%; multiple choices)

Single 241 (71.3)

Have same-sex partner 96 (28.4)

Have opposite-sex partner 2 (0.6)

Married 8 (2.4)

Divorced 6 (1.8)

Sexual roles N (%)

Top 43 (12.7)

Versatiles 90 (26.6)

Bottoms 164 (48.6)

Others 41 (12.1)

Measures

Self-rated attractiveness

We employed 1 item to measure self-rated attractiveness, which has been successfully applied in previous preference and attractiveness studies (Feinberg et al., 2012; Kandrik & DeBruine, 2012). Participants rated their own attractiveness on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = much less attractive than average, 9 = much more attractive than average). Higher scores on the questionnaire represent higher self-perceived attractiveness.

Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R)

The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R) is a 9-item questionnaire that measures individuals’ committed versus uncommitted sexual behaviors (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). The SOI-R assesses overall sociosexual orientation and contains three subscales: Sociosexual Behavior (SOI-behavior), Sociosexual Attitude (SOI-attitude), and Sociosexual Desire (SOI-desire). The average scores of three subscales were calculated for the 3 relevant items, and the total score was calculated by averaging these three components scores. The Cronbach’s αs in the present study for total score, SOI-behavior, SOI-attitude, and SOI-desire, were .78, .83, .68, and .79, respectively.

Voice stimuli

We collected and manipulated voice stimuli using the same method as past research (Feinberg, Jones, Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2005), recruiting six Chinese male undergraduates to speak the sentence in the “Rainbow Passage” (Fairbanks, 1960), “When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act as a prism and form a rainbow,” in Chinese. Each participant spoke the sentence 3 times, and then voices were selected from the overall pool to obtain a normal range for voice stimuli, eliminating unnatural ones. We recorded the voice stimuli with an Audio-Technica ATR-2500 microphone and the Cool Edit Pro 2.0 recording software in a silent, soundproof cubicle at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz and with 16-bit amplitude quantization.

Praat Version 6.0.37 was used to measure and manipulate the voice stimuli. We created higher pitched (feminized) and lower pitched (masculinized) versions of each male voice by raising and lowering the pitch to ±0.5 equivalent rectangular bandwidths (ERBs) of the original frequency using the pitch-synchronous overlap add (France Telecom) method in Praat. This manipulation is roughly equivalent to ±20 Hz in this particular sample but considers the fact that pitch perception is on a log-linear scale in comparison to natural frequencies (i.e., Hz; Stevens, 1998). The ERB Scale more accurately explains the difference between perceptions of pitch and natural frequency than the Tonotopic Bark, Semitone, or Mel scales (Stevens, 1998). Through this process, we created six pairs of male voices, each consisting of one feminized version and one masculinized version. The descriptive statistics (means and SDs) for the male voice stimuli used in our study are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics (Means and SD) for Male Voice Stimuli Used in Our Study.

Pitch Manipulation Mean Pitch in Hz (SD) Mean Pitch in ERBs (SD)

Lowed 109.82 (9.56) 3.64 (0.26)

Raised 143.85 (6.68) 4.53 (0.17)

Note. Voices were raised or lowered by ±0.5 ERBs of the original frequency, which is roughly equivalent to ±20 Hz. ERBs = equivalent rectangular bandwidths.

Procedure

Previous studies have demonstrated that Internet-based studies of voice attractiveness produce results consistent with those of laboratory studies (Feinberg, DeBruine, Jones, & Little, 2008). Therefore, our experiment was conducted online, via the survey platform www.sojump.com. In this questionnaire, participants first provide sociodemographic characteristics: age, education level, professional status, relationship status, and sexual orientation. In the “voices preferences” task, six pairs of male voices (each pair consisting of one lower and one higher version of the same original voice) were presented, and participants were asked to select the more attractive voice in each pair. The forced-choice method was used to evaluate voices preference of participants, as it has proved successful in other Internet-based studies of voice attractiveness (Feinberg et al., 2008). Finally, participants completed the Self-Rated Attractiveness Scale and the SOI-R. The masculinized and feminized version of each voice were presented randomly, as were the prompts for answers on voice preference, self-rated attractiveness, and SOI-R.

Results

Overall Preferences and Descriptive Statistics of Variables

To establish whether gay men reported stronger attraction to masculine than to feminine versions of the same voices, we used one-sample t tests to compare the men’s scores on the voices preference test. The general preferences indicated that gay men selected lower pitched voices significantly more often than chance (i.e., 0.5, M = .71, SD = .28). One-sample t tests revealed that lower pitched voice was selected as more attractive, t(337) = 13.55, p < .001, standard error of mean = .015, d = .71, indicating that gay men significantly prefer masculinized over feminized voices. This result was consistent with past research (Zhang, Zheng, & Zheng, 2018) in which gay men preferred more masculine cues in voices. Age of participants was found to be significantly correlated with SOI-R (r = .23, p < .001) but not correlated with vocal masculinity preference (r = −.073, p = .18) or self-rated attractiveness (r = −0.002, p = .97).

Self-rated Attractiveness, Sociosexuality, and Voice Preference

To examine the relationship between self-rated attractiveness, sociosexuality, and vocal masculinity preference, first, we calculated the correlation coefficients between them. We found that gay men’s self-rated attractiveness was significantly positively correlated with preference for masculine cues in male voices. Gay men’s global SOI-R was also positively significantly correlated with vocal masculinity preference. The correlation coefficients among its three components (SOI-behavior, SOI-attitude, and SOI-desire), self-rated attractiveness, and the preference for lower pitched voices are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.
Correlation Coefficients (r) Among Variables of Voice Preference, Self-Attractiveness, and SOI-R.

Measures Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. VMP 0.71 0.28 —

2. SRA 4.99 1.72 0.14 —

3. SOI-R 3.55 1.50 0.16 0.13* —

4. SOI-behavior 3.15 2.00 0.19* 0.1 0.74* —

5. SOI-attitude 3.95 2.33 0.06 0.13* 0.8* 0.44* —

6. SOI-desire 3.54 1.85 0.11* 0.03 0.61* 0.17* 0.21*** —

Note. VMP = vocal masculinity preference; SRA = self-rated attractiveness; SOI-R = Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

To further explore this association, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression analysis with demographic variables (age, education, and profession) serving as independent variables in the first step and self-rated attractiveness, three components of sociosexuality in the second step, and vocal masculinity preferences serving as the dependent variable. The general regression model was significant. Self-rated attractiveness was a significant predictor of masculine voice preference, and among these three subscales of SOI-R, sociosexual behavior significantly predicted gay men’s vocal masculinity preferences, while sociosexual attitude and sociosexual desire were not significant predictors. Moreover, among the demographic variables, age, education, and profession did not significantly predict masculine voice preference. The results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses of Self-Attractiveness and SOI-R for Vocal Masculinity Preference.

Independent Variables VMP

B SE β p R ²

Step1 Age^a −.005 .003 −.112 .08 .017

Occupation .013 .023 .036 .571

Degree .030 .016 .103 .06

F for R ², p F(3,334) = 1.876, p = .133

Step2 .066

SRA .019 .009 .119 .028

SOI-behavior .027 .009 .196 .002

SOI-desire .008 .008 .051 .357

SOI-attitude −.008 .007 −.066 .281

R ² change 0.05

F for R ² change, p F(7,330) = 3.338, p = .002

Note. VMP = vocal masculinity preference; SRA = self-rated attractiveness; SOI = Sociosexual Orientation Inventory.

^aAbsolute range, 16–51.

Discussion

Our findings indicate that self-rated attractiveness and sociosexuality of gay men are positively correlated and that these two putative measures of underlying mate quality have coincident effects on vocal masculinity preferences. Self-rated attractiveness significantly predicted preference for lower pitched voices in gay men in China: Gay men who judged themselves as more attractive showed stronger preference for lower pitched voices than did gay men who judged themselves as less attractive. Additionally, SOI-R positively predicted gay men’s masculine voice preference: Gay men who were less sexually restricted preferred more masculine male voices compared with gay men who were more restricted.

In our study, gay men who rated themselves as more attractive showed stronger preference for masculine male voices. This result complements previous findings for individuals’ self-rated attractiveness and their preference for preferred-sex-typical characteristics (Burriss, Welling, & Puts, 2011; Vukovic et al., 2008), suggesting that regardless of sexual orientation, high mate value individuals are more likely to attract or obtain high mate value partners as them. As the previous investigations illustrated, attractiveness-contingent preferences were adaptive in that attractive individuals are more likely to be able to attract or retain high mate value partner than unattractive individuals because they can trade off the possible negative impacts of more masculine partners (e.g., pursuing short-term relationships, investing fewer resources in their partners), while low self-rated attractiveness individuals select low mate value partners as these mates may less likely to desert them and invest more in their relationship (Boothroyd, Jones, Burt, DeBruine, & Perrett, 2008; Vukovic et al., 2008). In our study, gay men with different levels of self-perceived attractiveness show different levels of vocal masculinity preference, indicating that gay men’s mate selection is also in line with assortative mating theory. In Kandrik and DeBruine (2012), conversely, there was no association between the self-perceived attractiveness of heterosexual men and their masculinity preference in male faces. Taken together, these results seem to confirm that the mate value effect does not generalize to perceptions of those who are not one’s preferred sex or potential mates. This is the first study to link self-perceived attractiveness and masculine voice preference in gay men, a potentially important finding worth replication in future research.

Indeed, the relationship between self-rated attractiveness and masculinity preferences showed domain commonness across the domains of faces and voices. Some research discusses the positive correlation between self-perceived attractiveness and masculinity preference in the domain of faces (Kandrik & DeBruine, 2012; Little et al., 2001), while other studies explore it in the domain of voice (Feinberg et al., 2012; Vukovic et al., 2008); the results are highly consistent. Moreover, research has demonstrated that mate preferences and actual choices are different because actual partners do not reach ideal standards and choices will be influenced by other realistic factors (Valentova, Štěrbová, Bártová, & Varella, 2016; Valentova, Varella, Bártová, Štěrbová, & Dixson, 2017). Future research should replicate the association between gay men’s self-rated attractiveness and their masculinity preference in other domains, such as body, olfaction, and personality characteristics, or in integrating them when forming attractiveness judgments and mate preferences; the association between mate value and actual mate choice will be an especially meaningful topic.

Past research has found that less sociosexually restricted men have stronger preference for sexual dimorphism in the sex they prefer than more restricted men do (Glassenberg et al., 2010). As expected, our study verified that global SOI-R significantly predicts gay men’s preference for masculine cues in male voices, which complements past research. However, additional multiple linear regression analyses indicated that the sociosexual behavior component of the SOI-R was a better predictor of the strength of preference for masculine voices than either sociosexual attitude or desire components. These results may instruct that the extent to which gay men actually engage in casual sex is an important sociosexual component for variation in their preferences for masculine characteristics in male voices. It is probable that gay men in China, who are seriously subject to the “internalized homophobia” effect, less often have permanent partners and that their frequency of engaging in casual sex will thus increase. Therefore, sociosexual behaviors should be more dominant in explaining gay men’s vocal masculinity preference compared with the other two components of SOI-R. While other studies emphasize that it is sexual attitude or sexual desire that positively correlates with gay men’s preference for masculine cues in the domain of faces (Glassenberg et al., 2010; Welling et al., 2013), given the diversity associations between the three components of SOI-R and their masculine cues preference in different physical domains (e.g., faces and voices), we hope future studies can explore this difference in mate preference across different domains.

Generally, previous studies have found that gay men showed stronger preference for masculine characteristics in faces and voices of males (Zhang et al., 2018), although the findings are mixed (Welling et al., 2013). Gay men cannot increase their likelihood of reproduction through same-sex mate choice, and likewise, their preference for masculinity cannot be attributed to the health cues of masculine features in terms of offspring and fertility; nevertheless, prior research has attributed masculine preferences in gay men to health cues transmitted by masculine faces. For example, Zheng and Zheng (2015) indicated that preferences for health were correlated with preferences for male facial masculinity in gay men in China, and individuals who were more health-oriented in their preferences for a romantic partner preferred more masculine male faces than individuals with lower levels of these orientations. The idea that masculine characteristics transmit cues of health has long been a topic in evolutionary psychology. Our findings that higher self-perceived attractiveness and SOI-R predict stronger preferences for masculine voices in gay men also support this view. The study of gay individuals provides a unique opportunity to investigate whether evolved mating psychologies are specific to the sex of the individual or sex of the partner.

Conclusions and Future Directions

In summary, the current study assessed whether and how gay men’s self-rated attractiveness and SOI-R predict their preference for masculine cues in male voices. As predicted, self-rated attractiveness and sociosexual behaviors of gay men were significant predictors of preference of vocal masculinity. Although our study provides further support for models of mate value and condition-dependent factors predicting gay men’s mate preference, its limitations should also be taken into account. First, the survey was conducted online, and most of the participants were more educated and affluent than the typical Chinese gay men; in future studies, recruitment should be conducted through a wider range of channels. Second, in our present study, we assumed that lower pitched voices were closely associated with indices of men’s long-term health and that masculine traits depend on testosterone levels; however, a recent study found that men’s vocal characteristics correlated negatively with one measure of mucosal immunity (salivary immunoglobulin-A) but not with testosterone levels (Arnocky et al., 2018). Thus, further research should use larger samples as well as more diverse biological markers of immunocompetence to verify the association between voice pitch and immunocompetence. Third, previous studies have indicated that WHR, body mass index (BMI), and individuals’ own voice pitch are all reliable indicators of individuals’ attractiveness; women with a lower WHR (Penton-Voak et al., 2003), an optimal BMI (Smith et al., 2009), and a higher pitched voice (Vukovic et al., 2010) tend to prefer more masculine characteristics in male faces or voices. Future investigation should consider the influence of the above condition-contingent individual differences on vocal masculinity preferences in gay men, who lack adequate research attention in this regard to date. Moreover, it would also be worthwhile to examine whether self- or other-rated measures of attractiveness correspond more strongly to these actual mating outcomes based on mate preference. Overall, we hope that future researchers should extend attractiveness research to integrate visual (e.g., faces) and nonvisual (e.g., voice) markers of attractiveness, contributing to a better understanding of mate value of individuals and mate choice.

Variables	Gay Men (n = 338)
Age (in years) M (SD)	24.72 (6.27)
Education level N (%)
Junior high school or less	15 (4.4)
Senior high school	41 (12.2)
College	254 (75.1)
Postgraduate or higher	28 (8.3)
Occupation N (%)
Students	138 (40.8)
Employed	170 (50.3)
Job waiting	13 (3.8)
Other	17 (5.1)
Relationship N (%; multiple choices)
Single	241 (71.3)
Have same-sex partner	96 (28.4)
Have opposite-sex partner	2 (0.6)
Married	8 (2.4)
Divorced	6 (1.8)
Sexual roles N (%)
Top	43 (12.7)
Versatiles	90 (26.6)
Bottoms	164 (48.6)
Others	41 (12.1)

Pitch Manipulation	Mean Pitch in Hz (SD)	Mean Pitch in ERBs (SD)
Lowed	109.82 (9.56)	3.64 (0.26)
Raised	143.85 (6.68)	4.53 (0.17)

Measures	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. VMP	0.71	0.28	—
2. SRA	4.99	1.72	0.14**	—
3. SOI-R	3.55	1.50	0.16**	0.13*	—
4. SOI-behavior	3.15	2.00	0.19***	0.1	0.74***	—
5. SOI-attitude	3.95	2.33	0.06	0.13*	0.8***	0.44***	—
6. SOI-desire	3.54	1.85	0.11*	0.03	0.61***	0.17***	0.21***	—

Independent Variables	VMP
Step1	Age^a	−.005	.003	−.112	.08	.017
Occupation	.013	.023	.036	.571
Degree	.030	.016	.103	.06
F for R ², p	F(3,334) = 1.876, p = .133
Step2						.066
SRA	.019	.009	.119	.028
SOI-behavior	.027	.009	.196	.002
SOI-desire	.008	.008	.051	.357
SOI-attitude	−.008	.007	−.066	.281
R ² change	0.05
F for R ² change, p	F(7,330) = 3.338, p = .002

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities,China (SWU1709106).

ORCID iD

Jing Zhang

References

Apicella

C. L.

Feinberg

D. R.

(2009). Voice pitch alters mate-choice—Relevant perception in hunter–gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 276, 1077–1082.

Arnocky

(2018). Self-perceived mate value, facial attractiveness, and mate preferences: Do desirable men want it all? Evolutionary Psychology, 16, doi:10.1177/1474704918763271

Arnocky

Hodges-Simeon

Ouellette

Albert

(2018). Do men with more masculine voices have better immunocompetence? Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 602–610.

Boothroyd

L. G.

Brewer

(2014). Self-reported impulsivity, rather than sociosexuality, predicts women’s preferences for masculine features in male faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 983–988.

Boothroyd

L. G.

Jones

B. C.

Burt

D. M.

DeBruine

L. M.

Perrett

D. I.

(2008). Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 211–218.

Burley

(1983). The meaning of assortative mating. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 191–203.

Burriss

R. P.

Welling

L. L. M.

Puts

D. A.

(2011). Men’s attractiveness predicts their preference for female facial femininity when judging for short-term, but not long-term, partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 542–546.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134–146.

10.

Dabbs

J. M.

Mallinger

(1999). High testosterone levels predict low voice pitch among men. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 801–804.

11.

Fairbanks

(1960). Voice and articulation handbook. New York: Harper.

12.

Feinberg

D. R.

(2008). Are human faces and voices ornaments signaling common underlying cues to mate value? Evolutionary Anthropology, 17, 112–118.

13.

Feinberg

D. R.

Debruine

L. M.

Jones

B. C.

Little

A. C.

(2008). Correlated preferences for men’s facial and vocal masculinity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 233–241.

14.

Feinberg

D. R.

Debruine

L. M.

Jones

B. C.

Little

A. C.

O’Connor

J. J. M.

Tigue

C. C.

(2012). Women’s self-perceived health and attractiveness predict their male vocal masculinity preferences in different directions across short- and long-term relationship contexts. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66, 413–418.

15.

Feinberg

D. R.

Jones

B. C.

Little

A. C.

Burt

D. M.

Perrett

D. I.

(2005). Manipulations of fundamental and formant frequencies influence the attractiveness of human male voices. Animal Behaviour, 69, 561–568.

16.

Folstad

Karter

A. J.

(1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist, 139, 603–622.

17.

Gangestad

S. W.

Garver-Apgar

C. E.

Simpson

J. A.

(2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151–163.

18.

Gangestad

S. W.

Simpson

J. A.

(2000). The evolution of mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 675–687.

19.

Geary

D. C.

Vigil

Byrd-Craven

(2004). Evolution of human mate choice. The Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42.

20.

Glassenberg

A. N.

Feinberg

D. R.

Jones

B. C.

Little

A. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

(2010). Sex-dimorphic face shape preference in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1289–1296.

21.

Gray

P. B.

Parkin

J. C.

Samms-Vaughan

M. E.

(2007). Hormonal correlates of human paternal interactions: A hospital-based investigation in urban Jamaica. Hormones and Behavior, 52, 499–507.

22.

Harries

Hawkins

Hacking

Hughes

I. A.

(1998). Changes in the male voice at puberty: Vocal fold length and its relationship to the fundamental frequency of the voice. The Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 112, 451–454.

23.

Hodges-Simeon

C. R.

Gruven

Gaulin

S. J. C.

(2015). The low male voice is a costly signal of phenotypic quality among Bolivian adolescents. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 294–302.

24.

Kandrik

Debruine

L. M.

(2012). Self-rated attractiveness predicts preferences for opposite-sex faces, while self-rated sex-typicality predicts preferences for same-sex faces. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 177–186.

25.

Klofstad

C. A.

Anderson

R. C.

Peters

(2012). Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 297, 2698–2704.

26.

N. P.

Bailey

J. M.

Kenrick

D. T.

Linsenmeier

J. A.

(2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.

27.

Bailey

D. H.

Winegard

Puts

D. A.

Welling

L. L.

Geary

D. C.

(2014). Women’s preference for masculine traits is disrupted by images of male-on-female aggression. PLoS One, 9, e110497.

28.

Lippa

R. A.

(2007). The relation between sex drive and sexual attraction to men and women: Across-national study of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 209–222.

29.

Little

A. C.

Burt

D. M.

Penton-Voak

I. S.

Perrett

D. I.

(2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings Biological Sciences, 268, 39–44.

30.

Little

A. C.

Jones

B. C.

Debruine

L. M.

(2011). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 366, 1638–1659.

31.

O’Connor

J. J. M.

Fraccaro

P. J.

Feinberg

D. R.

(2012). The influence of male voice pitch on women’s perceptions of relationship investment. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 1–13.

32.

O’Connor

J. J. M.

Jones

B. C.

Fraccaro

P. J.

Tigue

C. C.

Pisanski

Feinberg

D. R.

(2014). Sociosexual attitudes and dyadic sexual desire independently predict women’s preferences for male vocal masculinity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1343–1353.

33.

O’Connor

J. J. M.

D. E.

Feinberg

D. R.

(2011). Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 64–78.

34.

Penke

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.

35.

Penton-Voak

I. S.

Little

A. C.

Jones

B. C.

Burt

D. M.

Tiddeman

B. P.

Perrett

D. I.

(2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 264–271.

36.

Provost

M. P.

Kormos

Kosakoski

Quinsey

V. L.

(2006). Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculinization and somatotype in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 305–312.

37.

Puts

D. A.

(2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388–397.

38.

Puts

D. A.

Gaulin

S. J. C.

Verdolini

(2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 283–296.

39.

Puts

D. A.

Jones

B. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

(2012). Sexual selection on human faces and voices. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 227–243.

40.

Saxton

T. K.

Caryl

P. G.

Roberts

S. C.

(2006). Vocal and facial attractiveness judgments of children, adolescents and adults: The ontogeny of mate choice. Ethology, 112, 1179–1185.

41.

Skrinda

Krama

Kecko

Moore

F. R.

Kaasik

Meija

… Krams

(2014). Body height, immunity, facial and vocal attractiveness in young men. Naturwissenschaften, 101, 1017–1025.

42.

Smith

F. G.

Jones

B. C.

Welling

L. L. W.

Little

A. C.

Vukovic

Main

J. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

(2009). Waist-hip ratio predicts women’s preferences for masculine male faces, but not perceptions of men’s trustworthiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 476–480.

43.

Stevens

(1998). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, England: MIT Press.

44.

Valentová

J. V.

Roberts

S. C.

Havlíček

(2013). Preferences for facial and vocal masculinity in homosexual men: The role of relationship status, sexual restrictiveness, and self-perceived masculinity. Perception, 42, 187–197.

45.

Valentova

J. V.

Štěrbová

Bártová

Varella

M. A. C.

(2016). Personality of ideal and actual romantic partners among heterosexual and non-heterosexual men and women: A cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 160–166.

46.

Valentova

J. V.

Varella

M. A. C.

Bártová

Štěrbová

Dixson

B. J. W.

(2017). Mate preferences and choices for facial and body hair in heterosexual women and homosexual men: Influence of sex, population, homogamy, and imprinting-like effect. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 241–248.

47.

van Anders

S. M.

Hamilton

L. D.

Watson

N. V.

(2007). Multiple partners are associated with higher testosterone in North American men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 454–459.

48.

Vukovic

Feinberg

D. R.

Jones

B. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

Welling

L. L. M.

Little

A. C.

Smith

F. G.

(2008). Self-rated attractiveness predicts individual differences in women’s preferences for masculine men’s voices. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 451–456.

49.

Vukovic

Jones

B. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

Feinberg

D. R.

Smith

F. G.

Little

A. C.

… Main

(2010). Women’s own voice pitch predicts their preferences for masculinity in men’s voices. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 767–772.

50.

Wegesin

D. J.

Meyer-Bahlburg

H. F.

(2000). Top/bottom self-label, anal sex practices, HIV risk and gender role identity in gay men in New York City. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12, 43–62.

51.

Welling

L. L. M.

Singh

Puts

D. A.

Jones

B. C.

Burriss

R. P.

(2013). Self-reported sexual desire in homosexual men and women predicts preferences for sexually dimorphic facial cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 785–791.

52.

Zaidi

A. A.

White

J. D.

Mattern

B. C.

Liebowitz

C. R.

Puts

D. A.

Claes

Shriver

M. D.

(2019). Facial masculinity does not appear to be a condition-dependent male ornament and does not reflect MHC heterozygosity in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 1633–1638.

53.

Zhang

Zheng

(2018). Consistency in preferences for masculinity in faces, bodies, voices, and personality characteristics among homosexual men in china. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 137–142.

54.

Zheng

Hart

T. A.

Zheng

(2013). Attraction to male facial masculinity in gay men in China: Relationship to intercourse preference positions and sociosexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1223–1232.

55.

Zheng

(2015). Correlated preferences for male facial masculinity and partner traits in gay and bisexual men in China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1423–1430.

Independent Variables		VMP
Independent Variables		B	SE	β	p	R ²
Step1	Age^a	−.005	.003	−.112	.08	.017
	Occupation	.013	.023	.036	.571
	Degree	.030	.016	.103	.06
F for R ², p	F(3,334) = 1.876, p = .133
Step2						.066
	SRA	.019	.009	.119	.028
	SOI-behavior	.027	.009	.196	.002
	SOI-desire	.008	.008	.051	.357
	SOI-attitude	−.008	.007	−.066	.281
R ² change	0.05
F for R ² change, p	F(7,330) = 3.338, p = .002

Self-rated Attractiveness and Sociosexual Behavior Predict Gay Men’s Preferences for Masculine Cues in Male Voices in China

Abstract

Keywords

The Present Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Self-rated attractiveness

Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R)

Voice stimuli

Procedure

Results

Overall Preferences and Descriptive Statistics of Variables

Self-rated Attractiveness, Sociosexuality, and Voice Preference

Discussion

Conclusions and Future Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References