Men have a new tool to help them escape broken hearts and also to aid them spot those cheating women who come up all innocent—as though they were Virgin Mary.
The new research says, male participants were able to successfully identify which women had previously cheated on their partners in 59 per cent of cases by studying photos of 34 women.
Led by Samantha Leivers, the research was carried out at the University of Western Australia—and as part of the study, the researchers asked a group of men to briefly look at photos of 34 women, but gave them no additional information about them.
The photos were shown in pairs – one of the women had cheated on a partner at least twice in the past, and one had always been faithful.
Bingo; the men were able to spot the cheaters in as many as 59 per cent of cases…
‘When asked to choose the more faithful of two women they performed significantly above chance,’ said the study, published in the journal Plos One.
According to MailOnline; “From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that men would have evolved the ability to spot a cheater because men can never be sure a child is genetically theirs, the researchers said.
That is, they could spend all their time and energy raising a child that is not theirs – and therefore would not pass on their genes – if their mate were to become pregnant by another man.”
The researcher wrote that , ‘due to the significant fitness cost associated with cuckoldry, it would be adaptive for men to have evolved the ability to predict or detect unfaithfulness in a potential partner.’
‘In summary, we show for the first time that men’s judgments of faithfulness from images of women can contain a kernel of truth when they are able to directly compare images in a forced choice task, although accuracy did not generalise to all pairs of women.
‘Previously, accuracy in faithfulness judgments has only been found for women judging men’s faces.
‘It is striking that men were able to show any accuracy from images alone after only a brief presentation, considering that accuracy in faithful judgments made from behavioural information is relatively poor.’