Re:Sexual partner selection is shaped by your opposite-sex p...
by eesmith on Tuesday April 07, 2020 @03:10PM
(#22806426)
This is an interpretation of a paper by Bereczkei et al. published in 2004. The paper, if I read it correctly, was based on photographs from "26 Caucasian families".
PubMed shows several more recent papers which cite the paper. One is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444291/ from 2012, which uses "22,861 individuals from 6,105 independent families". That paper says:
> A strong previous demonstration of sexual imprinting was subsequently found to contain serious errors (Bereczkei, Hegedus, and Hajnal 2009). The distinct lack of an effect in the current large sample using appropriate genetic controls indicates that sexual imprinting does not play a role in human mate choice, at least in terms of the range of physical and psychological traits investigated here.
Thus, I consider it very likely the conclusions of the first publication should not be regarded as conclusive.
If I had a Medium account, I would post a comment. Perhaps someone here would do that?
PubMed shows several more recent papers which cite the paper. One is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444291/ from 2012, which uses "22,861 individuals from 6,105 independent families". That paper says:
> A strong previous demonstration of sexual imprinting was subsequently found to contain serious errors (Bereczkei, Hegedus, and Hajnal 2009). The distinct lack of an effect in the current large sample using appropriate genetic controls indicates that sexual imprinting does not play a role in human mate choice, at least in terms of the range of physical and psychological traits investigated here.
Thus, I consider it very likely the conclusions of the first publication should not be regarded as conclusive.
If I had a Medium account, I would post a comment. Perhaps someone here would do that?