Fisher C, Fincher CL, Little AC, DeBruine LM & Jones BC (2013). Assortative mating for weight is not due to assortative preferences. European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association in Amsterdam, Netherlands. March 2013.


Assortative mating for weight, whereby romantic partners’ weights tend to be positively correlated, has implications for population health because of the combined effects of partners’ weights on fertility and/or offspring health. Although assortative preferences for cues of weight, whereby leaner people are inherently more attracted to leaner individuals, have been proposed as a contributing factor in assortative mating for weight, there have been no direct tests of this issue. Because of this, and because of recent work suggesting that facial cues of weight convey information about others’ health that may be particularly important for mate preferences, we directly tested the contribution of assortative preferences for cues of weight in opposite-sex faces.


We assessed the strength of romantic couples’ preferences for cues of weight in opposite-sex faces and measured their own body mass index (BMI).


Romantic partners’ BMIs were positively correlated and this correlation was not due to the possible effects of age or relationship duration. Additionally, men and women with heavier partners showed weaker preferences for cues of low weight in opposite-sex faces. However, controlling for these preferences did not weaken the correlation between romantic partners’ BMIs. Further analyses showed that this was because own BMI and preferences were uncorrelated.


Our results suggest that preferences for cues of weight in opposite-sex faces predict the weight of men’s and women’s actual romantic partners. However, our results also show that assortative preferences for facial cues of weight contribute little (if at all) to assortative mating for weight, at least in this sample. Thus, our data suggest that assortative mating for weight is more likely to be due to the additional constraints on heavier individuals’ mate choices, rather than individual differences in mate preferences.

Disclaimer: The information found and the views expressed in these homepages are not the responsibility of the University of Glasgow nor do they reflect institutional policy.