Title: Human appearance preferences as emergent properties of generalised learning

Authors: Lynda G. Boothroyd

Deadline: (Has not been set yet)

About Commentary Proposals: When a target article or recent book has been accepted for BBS commentary, the editorial office sends out the call for commentary proposals to thousands of people. Commentary proposals help the BBS editors craft a well-balanced commentary invitation list.

If this target article or book précis interests you as a possible subject for commentary, please download the full pre-print to see if you would like to propose a commentary.

Download Target Article Accepted Manuscript

If you are interested, please follow the instructions below. Please keep in mind that we are not asking you to submit a commentary -- but rather, a short proposal in order to be considered as an invited author after the proposal deadline. If you are not interested, no action is required.

Abstract: The tendency to find some individuals or personal features more visually or aesthetically appealing than others (appearance preferences) is a widespread human experience. The underlying causes of why some people or features in particular are considered attractive has been variably conceptualised as being the product of cultural power structures, a by-product of broader cognitive processes, and a reflection of ‘innate’ appearance preferences and processes shaped by sexual selection. Evolutionary-adaptationist and cognitive processing perspectives both prompted the development of a large literature attempting to understand why some specific traits are considered attractive. More recently, however, questions have emerged regarding the validity of the proposed ‘adaptive’ benefits of some of these traits within an evolutionary framework. Simultaneously, cross-cultural research has demonstrated that while some underlying cognitive processes may be similar across populations, specific appearance preferences are more variable than some ‘functional’ adaptationist hypotheses predict.  The current paper outlines what key challenges exist for an approach to appearance preferences that focuses on specific functional mating adaptations, and how cognitive and cultural processes may provide a more robust explanation of current cross- and intra-cultural data without a requirement for sexual selection to have played a role. It then argues that a large portion of human appearance preferences – including those previously thought to be human universals - may in fact be a by-product of broader perceptual and learning processes interacting with cultural-evolutionary feedback. Finally, new predictions, and remaining challenges to this integrated cognitive-cultural model, are put forward for further consideration. 

Keywords: attraction; beauty; body image; evolutionary psychology; culture; visual adaptation; mate choice

Commentary Proposal Submission Instructions

In order to nominate yourself for a commentary invitation, follow the instructions below and submit a commentary proposal via the BBS ScholarOne site: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bbsjournal

You may find these instructions available at https://multimediafluids.uam.elogim.com/core/journals/behavioral...

If you received the call for commentary proposals, your username should have been included inside the email. At the ScholarOne site, you can register a new user account, update your existing information, or retrieve your password.

COMMENTARY PROPOSALS MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

1. Name of target article/book précis on which you are submitting a commentary proposal.

2. All proposal authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of your submission document.

3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate commenting on.

4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article or book.⁺

>> Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. <<

⁺Including your relevant expertise saves the editors valuable time when evaluating proposals. If one of these requirements is missing, your proposal will be returned for resubmission.

EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL:

In addition to the open “Call for Commentary Proposals,” we invite commentators who do not submit proposals—these include reviewers of the target article/book, scholars whose work is discussed in the target article/book, and commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary.

Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view of the

target article/book, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the constraints:

1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. On the other hand, “I intend to comment on X aspect of the target article/book précis” is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it?

2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and submit it to us.

3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article/book they intend to comment on. It’s quite obvious when proposers are using the commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with the target article/book. Such proposals are routinely declined.

4. Concerning “the relevant expertise you would bring to bear”: While the editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the target article/book, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included.

5. BUT … it’s not all about articles previously published, or position in the field. It’s not necessary to have published in the area, and it’s not necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make efforts to include proposals coming both from established figures and total newcomers. An engaging idea, an illuminating application of the target article/book concept to an allied field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that’s needed.

6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article/book précis will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all.

7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you’ve written one or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero.

AI USE IN COMMENTARY PROPOSALS AND COMMENTARIES

BBS commentaries are valuable because each commentator brings their own expertise and perspective to the target article. Commentary proposals and commentaries must therefore be the author's own intellectual work. Some AI assistance is acceptable—e.g., language editing, translation, literature searches—but any such use must be described upon submission. Using AI tools to generate the arguments, ideas, or substantial portions of the text is not permitted. BBS may screen submissions with AI-detection tools, and authors who submit unacknowledged AI-generated work may be barred from future submissions.

This policy supplements Cambridge University Press's policy on AI in research publishing.

HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM:

If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial Manager site. NOTE: Commentary proposals should be submitted by the person who would be the corresponding author -- if the editors choose to invite you to submit a commentary article.

1. Log-in to your BBS ScholarOne account: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bbsjournal 

Enter your username and then your password: 

If you have forgotten your password, you may click Reset Password. If you forgotten your username and/or the email address associated with your account, please contact bbsjournal@cambridge.org. If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. 

2. Submit New Manuscript:

Once you have logged in, click the Author tab at the top, choose Start New Submission on the far left, and then click Begin Submission. 

3. Select Article Type and Enter Title:

Choose the article type Commentary Proposal. Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Bai "

4. Select the Associated Target Article:

In the section “Target Article” choose the target article for which you are submitting a commentary proposal from the drop-down menu, and then click Save & Continue. 

5. File Upload (Add Co-Authors IN UPLOADED FILE): 

Choose the File Designation of Main Document, click Select File, browse to find your commentary proposal which should be in .DOC(X) or .RTF format, and then click Upload Selected Files. NOTE: Any co-authors need to be named in the file you upload. The system will not let you add additional co-authors. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary proposal itself. 

6. Confirmation: 

Check the box to confirm that your filename adheres to submission system policies, and then click Save & Continue.

7. Authors & Institutions:

Check all the boxes in the Corresponding Author section, and then click Save & Continue. The system will NOT allow you to add co-authors.

8. Details & Comments:

Answer the questions required by the submission system and then click Save & Continue.

7. Review & Submit:

Check all of your submission details, and then click View PDF proof at the bottom. If it looks okay, click Submit at the bottom. If you want to change anything, click any of the Edit buttons on the page and go through the steps again. 8. Editorial Office Decision At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of commentary proposals will be approved, and those author names will be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the commentary deadline. 

Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official invitation! 

BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST

If you DO NOT wish to receive calls for commentary proposals in the future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org and type "remove" in the subject line. It might take approximately 7 to 10 days to remove you from our email list. 

SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS 

To suggest others as possible commentators, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org