Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely?

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 233-238

  Koehler, Nicole ^a   Rhodes, Gillian ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRACEPTIVE USE; INTRASEXUAL INTERACTION; VISUAL CUE;

EID: 0036395275     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2002.3063     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Enquist, M. & Arak, A. 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature, 372, 169-172.
2. Folstad, I. & Karter, A. J. 1992. Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist, 139, 603-622.
3. Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A. 2000. The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644.
4. Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. 1997. The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 18, 69-88.
5. Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. 1998. Menstrual cycle variation in women's preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 927-933.
6. Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. 1999. Individual differences in developmental precision and fluctuating asymmetry: a model and its implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biolology, 12, 402-416.
7. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R. & Yeo, R. A. 1994. Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73-85.
8. Grammer, K. & Thornhill, R. 1994. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233-242.
9. Hoelzer, G. A. 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Animal Behaviour, 38, 1067-1078.
10. Jansson, L., Forkman, B. & Enquist, M. 2002. Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Animal Behaviour, 63, 617-621.
11. Johnstone, R. A. 1994. Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature, 372, 172-175.
12. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33-38.
13. Langlois, J. H. & Roggman, L. A. 1990. Attractive faces are only average. American Psychological Society, 1, 115-121.
14. Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. 2002. Evolution and individual differences in the perception of attractiveness: how cyclic hormonal changes and self-perceived attractiveness influence female preferences for male faces. In: Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives (Ed. by G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz), pp. 59-90. Westport, Connecticut: Ablex.
15. Malina, R. M. & Buschang, P. H. 1984. Anthropometric asymmetry in normal and mentally retarded males. Annals of Human Biology, 11, 515-531.
16. Maret, S. M., & Harling, C. 1985. Cross-cultural perceptions of physical attractiveness: rating of photographs of whites by Cruzans and Americans. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 163-166.
17. Mealey, L., Bridgstock, R. & Townsend, G. C. 1999. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 151-158.
18. Mellor, C. S. 1992. Dermatoglyphic evidence of fluctuating asymmetry in schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 467-472.
19. Møller, A. P. 1997. Developmental stability and fitness: a review. American Naturalist, 149, 916-932.
20. Møller, A. P. & Swaddle, J. P. (Eds) 1997. Asymmetry, Developmental Stability, and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Palmer, A. C. & Strobeck, C. 1986. Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, pattern. Annual Review in Ecology and Systematics, 17, 391-421.
22. Penton-Voak, I. S. & Perrett, D. I. 2000. Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39-48.
23. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K. & Minamisawa, R. 1999. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 388, 741-742.
24. Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A. & Edwards, R. 1999. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 295-307.
25. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M. & Sumich, A. 1998. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychometric Bulletin and Review, 5, 659-669.
26. Rhodes, G., Roberts, J. & Simmons, L. W. 1999a. Reflections on symmetry and attractiveness. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 1, 279-295.
27. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A. & Byatt, G. 1999b. Are average facial configurations only attractive because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52-58.
28. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A. & McKay, R. 2001. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 31-46.
29. Rikowski, A. & Grammer, K. 1999. Human body odour, symmetry and attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 266, 869-874.
30. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. 1999. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 266, 1913-1917.
31. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. 1994. Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297-302.
32. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. 1996. The evolution of human sexuality. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 98-102.
33. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. 1999a. Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452-460.
34. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. 1999b. The scent of symmetry: a human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 175-201.
35. Thornhill, R. & Møller, A. P. 1997. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biological Reviews, 72, 497-548.
36. Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W. & Comer, R. 1995. Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour, 50, 1601-1615.
37. Tomkins, J. L. & Simmons, L. W. In press. Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection: paradigm shifts, publication bias and observer expectation. In: Developmental Stability: Causes and Consequences (Ed. by M. Polak), New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Van Valen, L. 1962. A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution, 16, 125-142.
39. Waynforth, D. 1998. Fluctuating asymmetry and human male life-history traits in rural Belize. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 1497-1501.
40. Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F. & Paepke, A. J. 1995. MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 260, 245-249.
41. Wiederman, M. & Dubois, S. L. 1998. Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153-170.