To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Immunomodulatory considerations must be analysed when inspecting the legitimacy of the ICHH. Immunomodulatory factors are just chemicals or environmental factors that influence the immune system through either repressing or stimulating its function. Thus, immunomodulatory factors impact mate selection preferences due to dynamic changes to the immune systems. A metanalysis conducted by Roberts, Buchman and Evans (2004) aimed to examine if the amalgamation of research in human and animal studies, 12 years after the first publication on the ICCH, supported the ICHH. They assessed studies that directly manipulated testosterone levels.
Based on their analysis, they concluded the literature to be unconvincing regarding testosterone and sexually dimorphic traits to be an honest indicator of immune health and gene quality. Contrasting to the ICHH, they suggested that instead testosterone is an immunomodulatory agent.
Furthermore, they concluded that testosterone might also moderate sexual expression, but does not in its entirety control of the onset of sexual traits. This is country to the basic premise of the ICHH which upholds that testosterone works to suppress the immune system and display sexual traits (INSERT CITATION FOR WHO FOUND THIS).
Verified writer
Proficient in: Biology
4.7 (657)
“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”
Additionally, they critiqued prior research for not adequately considering environmental factors such as availability of food which may impact immune response, because those with better quality food may be generally healthier, skewing previous results that do not include immunomodulatory factors. In concurrence to my thesis, Roberts et al. (200) concluded that the evidence is unclear at best vis-a-vis the ICHH.
Linking Roberts (2004) conclusions of the weaknesses of ICHH due to moderating factors complicating mate preferences, Perrett et al.
(1998) examined sexually dimorphic traits relating to facial attractiveness. A central tenant of the ICCH is that masculine faces are more attractive to women because they indicate an honest signal of immune health; however, this paper proved the exact opposite. They found that more feminised faces were perceived as more attractive to both men and women in Japan and Scotland, which are affluent societies. This suggests that there may be more nuance to mating preferences that include human learning behaviour and parental investment, as opposed to an exclusively genetic component (ICHH). Parental invest seems to be an essential consideration when selecting a partner, in this Western sample, as more feminised male faces are perceived to care more for their offspring, suggesting that the power of sexually dimorphic traits in mating preferences do not carry as much weight as previously assumed. Thus, providing further weakness to the ICHH and complicating assumed mating preferences.
Moreover, environmental factors seem to be an essential determinant if the traditional ICHH assumptions hold. For instance, DeBrune (2010) purposed that a trade-off theory that signifies the cost and benefits are accompanying masculinity are more important factors for women's mating preferences than the ICCH postulates. This cost-benefit analysis of mating is supported by Perrett (1998) findings and mediated by the women's environment. Factors impacting women's mating preferences, however, are subject to her current situation and goals, allowing for flexibility as life changes. Moreover, the link between attraction, masculinization and the ICHH should be most influential in poor societies due to the lack of medical services and increased rate of sickness, suggesting that women should be choosing healthier men in developing countries. DeBruine (2010) investigated 30 countries, in which most were developed Western countries, to examine the relationship between countries health and women's preference for masculine faces.
Additionally, because of the cost-benefit analysis women make, they presumed that women in short term relationships would have more of a preference for masculine features, due to the offspring benefits mating with masculine man obtains (namely healthier and better-looking offspring). However, they assumed that women in long-term relationships would prefer more feminine faces, which are associated with an increase in parental investment. Research has found an inverse relationship between the health of the nation and women's preference for masculine faces. This finding lends partial support for the ICHH, by subtly implicating that as health in a country is declining women chose more masculine men because this is an indicator for better health. They did not find support for the relationship duration for predicting mating preferences, suggesting that not all environmental features are significantly impactful on women's mating preferences.
However, to extend Debrune (2010)'s research work by Brooks et al. (2011) furthers this evidence that environmental factors impact mating preferences by exploring social inequalities in a diverse cross-cultural study. Socioeconomic status is vital for forming the link between attraction and the ICHH because of the direct benefit women would receive from having a more masculine partner, such as increased safety and wealth. Brooks (2011) examined national preference for facial masculinity with countries overall wellness which included measures of crime, women's agency, and income disparity. They found that women's partiality for masculine men was most salient in countries in which had high economic inequality, suggesting that instead of mating for immunoenhancement, as implicated in DeBrune (2010), women were preferencing partners that could benefit them through increased socioeconomic status. This is further complicating mating preference theories by suggesting that women may not be mating for better health as suggest in the ICHH hypotheses but are instead selecting partners that provide direct benefits to them, such as increased economic status.
Immunomodulatory Factors. (2019, Dec 09). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/immunomodulatory-factors-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
