Attraction independent of detection suggests special mechanisms for symmetry preferences in human face perception

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 273, Issue 1605, 2006, Pages 3093-3099

  Little, Anthony C ^a,c   Jones, Benedict C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Detection; Evolution; Face perception; Preference; Symmetry

Indexed keywords

DETECTION METHOD; MATE CHOICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SYMMETRY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACE ASYMMETRY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; ESTHETICS; FACE; HISTOLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADULT; BEAUTY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL;

EID: 39049181816     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3679     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Koenigs, M. & Damasio, A. R. 2005 Preferring one taste over another without recognizing either. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 860-861.
2. Attneave, F. 1955 Symmetry, information, and memory for patterns. Am. J. Psychol. 68, 209-222. (doi:10.2307/1418892)
3. Barton, J. J. S., Keenan, J. P. & Bass, T. 2001 Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: effects of inversion and viewing duration. Br. J. Psychol. 92, 527-549.
4. Berridge, K. 1996 Food reward: brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neurosci. Behav. Rev. 20, 1-25.
5. Berridge, K. C. & Robinson, T. E. 2003 Parsing reward. Trends Neurosci. 26, 507-513. (doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(03)00233-9)
6. Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1994 Origins of domain specificity: the evolution of functional organization. In Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture (ed. L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Enquist, M. & Arak, A. 1994 Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372, 169-172. (doi:10.1038/372169a0)
8. Enquist, M. & Ghirlanda, S. 1998 The secrets of faces. Nature 394, 826-827. (doi:10.1038/29636)
9. Enquist, M. & Johnstone, R. A. 1997 Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences. Proc. R. Soc. B 264, 1345-1348. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0186)
10. Fodor, J. 1983 The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A. 2000 The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 573-644. (doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X)
12. Gombrich, E. H. 1984 The sense of order: a study in the psychology of decorative art. London, UK: Phaidon.
13. Grammer, K. & Thornhill, R. 1994 Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J. Comp. Psychol. 108, 233-242. (doi:10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233)
14. Herbert, A. M. & Humphrey, G. K. 1996 Bilateral symmetry detection: testing a 'callosal' hypothesis. Perception 25, 463-480.
15. Jansson, L., Forkman, B. & Enquist, M. 2002 Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Anim. Behav. 63, 617-621. (doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1936)
16. Johnstone, R. A. 1994 Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372, 172-175. (doi:10.1038/372172a0)
17. Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. 2001 Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health - support for a "good genes" explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evol. Hum. Behav. 22, 417-429. (doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00083-6)
18. LeDoux, J. 1998 Fear and the brain: where have we been, and where are we going? Biol. Psychiatry 44, 1229-1238. (doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(98) 00282-0)
19. Little, A. C. & Jones, B. C. 2003 Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proc. R. Soc. B 270, 1759-1763. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2445)
20. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S. & Perrett, D. I. 2001 Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 39-44. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1327)
21. Mach, E. 1897 Contributions to the analysis of the sensations. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
22. Møller, A. P. 1997 Developmental stability and fitness: a review. Am. Nat. 149, 916-942.
23. Møller, A. P. & Thornhill, R. 1998 Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am. Nat. 151, 174-192.
24. Murray, J. E., Yong, E. & Rhodes, G. 2000 Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces. Psychol. Sci. 11, 492-496. (doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00294)
25. Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. 2001 Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions, and male facial attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 1617-1623. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1703)
26. Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A. & Edwards, R. 1999 Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20, 295-307. (doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00014-8)
27. Pinker, S. 1997 How the mind works. Harmondsworth, UK: The Penguin Press.
28. Rensch, B. 1963 Vesuche uber menschliche Auslosermerk-male beider Geschlecter. Zeitschrift fur Morphologische Anthropologie 53, 139-164.
29. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. & Sumich, A. 1998 Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5, 659-669.
30. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A. & Byatt, G. 1999 Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychol. Sci. 10, 52-58. (doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00106)
31. Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R. & Akamatsu, S. 2001 Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western populations: in search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception 30, 611-625. (doi:10.1068/p3123)
32. Rhodes, G., Peters, M., Lee, K., Morrone, M. C. & Burr, D. 2005 Higher-level mechanisms detect facial symmetry. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 1379-1384. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3093)
33. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. 1999 Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues to good genes. Proc. R. Soc. B 266, 1913-1917. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0866)
34. Swaddle, J. P. 1999 Limits to length asymmetry detection in starlings: implications for biological signalling. Proc. R. Soc. B 266, 1299-1303. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0778)
35. Swaddle, J. P. & Ruff, D. A. 2004 Starlings have difficulty in detecting dot symmetry: implications for studying fluctuating asymmetry. Behaviour 141, 29-40. (doi:10.1163/156853904772746583)
36. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. 1999 Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 452-460. (doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01403-5)
37. Waitt, C. & Little, A. C. 2006 Preferences for symmetry in conspecific facial shape among Macaca mulatta. Int. J. Primatol. 27, 133-145. (doi:10.1007/s10764-005-9015-y)
38. Winston, J. S., Strange, B. A., O'Doherty, J. & Dolan, R. J. 2002 Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 277-283. (doi:10.1038/nn816)
39. Yin, R. K. 1969 Looking at upside-down faces. J. Exp. Psychol. 81, 141-145. (doi:10.1037/h0027474)
40. Zajonc, R. B. 1968 Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9, 1-27.
41. Zajonc, R. B. 1980 Feeling and thinking - preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol. 35, 151-175. (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151)