Symmetry and sexual dimorphism in human faces: Interrelated preferences suggest both signal quality

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 902-908

  Little, Anthony C ^a   Jones, Benedict C ^b   DeBruine, Lisa M ^b   Feinberg, David R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Facial attractiveness; Preferences; Sexual dimorphism; Sexual selection; Symmetry

Indexed keywords

FEMINISM; HOMINID; MORPHOLOGY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; SYMMETRY;

EID: 47649092302     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn049     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Benson PJ, Perrett DI. 1993. Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception. 22:257-262.
2. Berry DS, McArthur LZ. 1985. Some components and consequences of a babyface. J Pers Soc Psychol. 48:312-323.
3. Cunningham MR. 1986. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol. 50:925-935.
4. Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL. 1990. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 59:61-72.
5. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Cooper PA, Penke L, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP. 2006. Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 273:1355-1360.
6. Enlow DM. 1982. Handbook of facial growth. Philadelphia: Saunders.
7. Enquist M, Arak A. 1993. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature. 361:446-448.
8. Enquist M, Arak A. 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature. 372:169-172.
9. Enquist M, Johnstone RA. 1997. Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1345-1348.
10. Fisher ML. 2004. Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271:S283-S285.
11. Folstad I, Karter AJ. 1992. Parasites, bright males and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat. 139:603-622.
12. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. 2003. Facial masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evol Hum Behav. 24:231-241.
13. Ghirlanda S, Jansson L, Enquist M. 2002. Chickens prefer beautiful humans. Hum Nat Interdiscipl Biosoc Pers. 13:383-389.
14. Gombrich EH. 1984. The sense of order: a study in the psychology of decorative art. London: Phaidon.
15. 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.
16. Jansson L, Forkman B, Enquist M. 2002. Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Anim Behav. 63:617-621.
17. Jasienska G, Lipson SF, Ellison PT, Thune I, Ziomkiewicz A. 2006. Symmetrical women have higher potential fertility. Evol Hum Behav. 27:390-400.
18. Jasienska G, Ziomkiewicz A, Ellison PT, Lipson SF, Thune I. 2004. Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271:1213-1217.
19. Johnstone RA. 1994. Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature. 372:172-175.
20. Jones BC, Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI. 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.
21. Jones D, Hill K. 1993. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat. 4:271-296.
22. Law-Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Feinberg DR, Boothroyd LG, Durrani SJ, Stirrat MR, Whiten S, et al. 2006. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 273:135-140.
23. Little AC, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI. 2001. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 268:39-44.
24. Little AC, Hancock PJ. 2002. The role of masculinity and distinctiveness on the perception of attractiveness in human male faces. Br J Psychol. 93:451-464.
25. Little AC, Jones BC. 2003. Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:1759-1763.
26. Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. 2002. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:1095-1100.
27. Little AC, Perrett DI. 2002. Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder. Psychologist. 15:28-32.
28. Mealey L, Bridgestock R, Townsend G. 1999. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 76:151-158.
29. Møller AP, Thornhill R. 1998. Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am Nat. 151:174-192.
30. Mueller U, Mazur A. 1997. Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signalling of male quality. Behav Ecol. 8:569-579.
31. Penton-Voak IS, Jones BC, Little AC, Baker S, Tiddeman B, Burt DM, Perrett DI. 2001. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions, and male facial attractiveness. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 268:1617-1623.
32. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, Minamisawa R. 1999. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature. 399:741-742.
33. Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R. 1999. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 20:295-307.
34. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak IS, Rowland DR, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S. 1998. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 394:884-887.
35. Rensch B. 1963. Vesuche uber menschliche Auslosermerkmale beider Geschlecter. Z Morphol Anthropol. 53:139-164.
36. Rhodes G, Hickford C, Jeffery L. 2000. Sex-typicality and attractiveness: are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive. Br J Psychol. 91:125-140.
37. Rhodes G, Proffitt F, Grady J, Sumich A. 1998. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon Bull Rev. 5:659-669.
38. 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.
39. Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. 1999. Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues to good genes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:1913-1917.
40. Simmons LW, Rhodes G, Peters M, Koehler N. 2004. Are human preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability? Behav Ecol. 15:864-871.
41. Singh D. 1993. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Pers Soc Psychol. 65:293-307.
42. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. 1999. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci. 3:452-460.
43. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. 2006. Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evol Hum Behav. 27:131-144.
44. Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI. 2001. Prototyping and transforming facial texture for perception research. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 21:42-50.