Physical Attractiveness: Signals of Phenotypic Quality and Beyond

Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 239-259

  Scheyd, Glenn J ^a   Garver Apgar, Christine E ^b   Gangestad, Steven W ^b  

^a NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951902445     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203888155-22     Document Type: Chapter

References (145)

1. Bailey, A. A., & Hurd, P. L. (2005). Finger length ratio (2D:4D) correlates with physical aggression in men but not in women. Biological Psychology, 68, 215-222.
2. Bonneaud, C., Chastel, O., Federici, P., Westerdahl, H., & Sorci, G. (2006). Complex Mhc-based mate choice in a wild passerine. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273, 1111-1116.
3. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Brase, G. L., & Walker, G. (2004). Male sexual strategies modify ratings of female models with specific waistto- hip ratios. Human Nature, 15, 209-224.
5. Brown, J. L. (1997). A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 60-65.
6. Brown, P. J., & Konner, M. (1987). An anthropological perspective on obesity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 499, 29-46.
7. Burnham, T. C., Chapman, J. F., Gray, P. B., McIntyre, M. H., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2003). Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 44, 119-122.
8. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
9. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10. Cronin, H. (1993). The ant and the peacock. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
11. Csatho, A., Osvath, A., Bicsak, E., Karadi, K., Manning, J. T., & Kallai, J. (2003). Sex role identity related to the ratio of second to fourth digit length in women. Biological Psychology, 62, 147-156.
12. Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
13. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
14. Dixson, A. F., Halliwell, G., East, R., Wignarajah, P., & Anderson, M. J. (2003). Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 29-39.
15. Ellison, P. T. (2003). Energetics and reproductive effort. American Journal of Human Biology, 15, 342-351.
16. Endler, J. A. (1993). Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 340, 215-225.
17. Enquist, M., & Arak, A. (1994). Symmetry, evolution, and beauty. Nature, 372, 169-172.
18. Enquist, M., & Johnstone, R. A. (1997). Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 1345-1348.
19. Fink, B., Grammer, K., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., Schaefer, K., Bookstein, F. L., et al. (2005). Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 1995-2001.
20. Fink, B., Manning, J. T., Neave, N., & Grammer, K. (2004). Second to fourth digit ratio and facial asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 125-132.
21. Fink, B., Neave, N., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second to fourth digit ratio, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and waist-to-chest ratio: Their relationships in heterosexual men and women. Annals of Human Biology, 30, 728-738.
22. Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Curent Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154-158.
23. Fink, B., Thanzami, V., Seydel, H., & Manning, J. T. (2006). Digit ratio (2D:4D) and hand grip strength in German and Mizos men: Cross-cultural evidence for an organising effect of prenatal testosterone on strength. American Journal of Human Biology, 18, 776-782.
24. Firman, R. C., Simmons, L. W., Cummins, J. M., & Matson, P. L. (2003). Are body fluctuating asymmetry and the ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length reliable predictors of semen quality? Human Reproduction, 18, 808-812.
25. Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon.
26. Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1987). Judging physical attractiveness: What body aspects do we use? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 19-33.
27. Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2004). Is male muscularity a sexually-selected fitness indicator? Evidence from women’s preferences for short-term and long-term mates. Paper presented at the evolutionary preconference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.
28. Freeman-Gallant, C. R., Meguerdichian, M., Wheelwright, N. T., & Sollecito, S. V. (2003). Social pairing and female mating fidelity predicted by restriction fragment length polymorphism similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in a songbird. Molecular Ecology, 12, 3077-3083.
29. Galton, F. J. (1878). Composite portraits. Nature, 18, 97-100.
30. Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 523-548.
31. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Individual differences in developmental precision and fluctuating asymmetry: A model and its implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 402-416.
32. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Fluctuating asymmetry, developmental instability, and fitness: Toward model-based interpretation. In M. Polak (Ed.), Developmental instability: Causes and consequences (pp 62-80). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
33. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2007). The evolution of social inference processes: The importance of signaling theory. In J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp 33-48). New York: Psychology Press.
34. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Adaptations to ovulation: Implications for sexual and social behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 312-316.
35. Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151-163.
36. Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., Miller, R. D., & Olp, J. (2006). MHC alleles, sexually responsivity, and unfaithfulness in romantic couples. Psychological Science, 17, 830-835.
37. Getty, T. (1998). Handicap signalling: When fecundity and mortality do not add up. Animal Behaviour, 56, 127-130.
38. Getty, T. (2002). Signaling health versus parasites. American Naturalist, 159, 363-371.
39. Grafen, A. (1990). Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144, 473-516.
40. Grafen, A., & Johnstone, R. A. (1993). Why we need ESS signaling theory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 340, 245-250.
41. Grammer, K., & Atzwanger, K. (1994). Der Lolita-complex: Sexualle attractivität und kindchenschema. In F. Naumann (Ed.), Kommunikation und humanontogenese (pp 77-99). Bielefeld, Germany: Kleine Verlag.
42. Grammer, K., Fink, B., Møller, A. P., & Manning, J. T. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health: Comment on Weeden and Sabini. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 658-661.
43. Grammer, K., Fink, B., Møller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78, 385-407.
44. Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285-289.
45. Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2003). It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 149-156.
46. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Blurton Jones, N. G. (2001). Hunting and nuclear families-some lessons from the Hadza about men’s work. Current Anthropology, 42, 681-709.
47. Hedrick, P. W., & Black, F. L. (1997). HLA and mate selection: No evidence in South Amerindians. American Journal of Human Genetics, 61, 505-511.
48. Herz, R. S., & Cahill, E. D. (1997). Differential use of sensory information in sexual behavior as a function of gender. Human Nature, 8, 275-286.
49. Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (1996). Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging people. New York: De Gruyter.
50. Holland, B., & Rice, W. R. (1998). Chase-away sexual selection: Antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52, 1-7.
51. Hönekopp, J., Manning, J. T., & Müller, C. (2006). Digit ratio (2D:4D) and physical fitness in males and females: Evidence for effects of prenatal androgens on sexually selected traits. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 545-549.
52. Hönekopp, J., Voracek, M., & Manning, J. T. (2006). 2nd to 4th digit ratio (2D:4D) and number of sex partners: Evidence for effects of prenatal testosterone in men. Psychoendocrinology, 31, 30-37.
53. Horvath, T. (1981). Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 21-24.
54. Houle, D. (1992). Comparing evolvability and variability of traits. Genetics, 130, 195-204.
55. Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 173-178.
56. Jansson, L., Forkman, B., & Enquist, M. (2002). Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Animal Behaviour, 63, 617-621.
57. Jasienska, G., Lipson, S. F., Ellison, P. T., Thune, I., & Ziomkiewicz, A. (2006). Symmetrical women have higher potential fertility. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 390-400.
58. Jasienska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P. T., Lipson, S. F., & Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 1213-1217.
59. Johnston, V. S., & Franklin, M. (1993). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 183-199.
60. Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 251-267.
61. Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 24-30.
62. Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny. Current Anthropology, 36, 723-748.
63. Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature, 4, 271-296.
64. Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: Diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9, 156-185.
65. Keating, C. F., Mazur, A., & Segall, M. H. (1981). A cross-cultural exploration of the physiognomy of dominance and happiness. Ethology and Sociobiology, 2, 41-48.
66. Kempel, P., Gohlke, B., Klempau, J., Zinsberger, P., Reuter, M., & Hennig, J. (2005). Second-to-fourth digit length, testosterone and spatial ability. Intelligence, 33, 215-230.
67. Kirkpatrick, M., & Ryan, M. J. (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33-38.
68. Koehler, N., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2002). Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely? Animal Behaviour, 64, 233-238.
69. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M. D., & Morley, J. (2003). The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 653-664.
70. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J. M., & Houston, A. I. (2002). The sexual selection continuum. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1331-1340.
71. Kokko, H., & Johnstone, R. A. (2002). Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles, and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences, 357, 319-330.
72. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390-423.
73. Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
74. Lindner, M. A., Rychman, R. M., Gold, J. A., & Stone, W. F. (1995). Traditional and nontraditional women and men’s perceptions of the personalities and physique of ideal men and women. Sex Roles, 32, 675-690.
75. Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (1996). Comparison of salivary steroid profiles in naturally occurring conception and non-conception cycles. Human Reproduction, 11, 2090-2096.
76. 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. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 39-44.
77. Little, A. C., & Jones, B. C. (2003). Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 1759-1763.
78. Luxen, M. F., & Buunk, B. P. (2005). Second-to-fourth digit ratio related to verbal and numerical intelligence and the big five. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 959-966.
79. Manning, J. T., Barley, L., Walton, J., Lewis-Jones, D. I., Trivers, R. L., Singh, D., et al. (2000). The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences and reproductive success: Evidence for sexually antagonistic genes? Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 163-183.
80. Manning, J. T., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & Sanders, G. (2001). The 2nd to 4th digit ratio and autism. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 43, 160-164.
81. Marlowe, F., Apicella, C., & Reed, D. (2005). Men’s preference for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Human Behavior and Evolution, 26, 458-468.
82. Marlowe, F., & Wetsman, A. (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 481-489.
83. Mazur, A., Mazur, J., & Keating, C. F. (1984). Military rank attainment of a West Point class: Effects of cadets’ physical features. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 125-150.
84. McArthur, L. Z., & Apatow, K. (1984). Impressions of baby-faced adults. Social Cognition, 315-342.
85. McIntyre, M. H. (2006). The use of digit ratios as markers for perinatal androgen action. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 4, 10.
86. Mehrabian, A., & Blum, J. S. (1997). Physical appearance, attractiveness, and the mediating role of the emotions. Current Psychology, 16, 20-42.
87. Milinski, M., Griffiths, S., Wegner, K. M., Reusch, T. B. H., Haas-Assenbaum, A., & Boehm, T. (2005). Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 4414-4418.
88. Møller, A. P. (1999). Asymmetry as a predictor of growth, fecundity and survival. Ecology Letters, 2, 149-156.
89. Møller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: A meta-analysis. American Naturalist, 151, 174-192.
90. Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1997). Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 569-579.
91. Muller, M. N., Thompson, M. E., & Wrangham, R. W. (2006). Male chimpanzees prefer mating with old females. Current Biology, 16, 2234-2238.
92. Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone, and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 2167-2172.
93. Neff, B. D., & Pitcher, T. E. (2005). Genetic quality and sexual selection: An integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology, 14, 19-38.
94. Olsson, M., Madsen, T., Nordby, J., Wapstra, E., Ujvari, B., & Wittsell, H. (2003). Major histocompatibility genes and mate choice in sand lizards. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, S254-S256.
95. Pawlowski, B., & Grabarczyk, M. (2003). Center of body mass and the evolution of female body shape. American Journal of Human Biology, 15, 144-150.
96. Penn, D. J. (2002). The scent of genetic compatibility: Sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology, 108, 1-21.
97. Penn, D. J., & Potts, W. K. (1999). The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. The American Naturalist, 153, 145-164.
98. Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 229-241.
99. Penton-Voak, I. S., Jacobson, A., & Trivers, R. (2004). Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 355-370.
100. Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D. M., et al. (2001). Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 1617-1623.
101. Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 264-271.
102. Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically-further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39-48.
103. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D., Burt, M., Koyabashi, T., & Murray, L. K. (1999). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature, 399, 741-742.
104. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239-242.
105. Petrie, M., & Kempenaers, B. (1998). Extra-pair paternity in birds: Explaining variation between species and populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 52-58.
106. Putz, D. A., Gaulin, S. J. C., Sporter, R. J., & McBurney, D. H. (2004). Sex hormones and finger length: What does 2D:4D indicate? Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 182-199.
107. Qvarnström, A. (1999). Different reproductive tactics in male collared flycatchers signalled by size of secondary sexual character. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 2089-2093.
108. Reusch, T. B. H., Haber, M. A., II, Aeschlimann, P. B., & Milinski, M. (2001). Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature, 414, 300-302.
109. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226.
110. Richardson, D. S., Komdeur, J., Burke, T., & von Schantz, T. (2005). MHC-based patterns of social and extra-pair mate choice in the Seychelles warbler. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 759-767.
111. Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Gosling, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Carter, V., Jones, B. C., et al. (2005). MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 213-226.
112. Roney, J. R., & Maestripieri, D. (2004). Relative digit lengths predict men’s behavior and attractiveness during social interactions with women. Human Nature, 15, 271-282.
113. Rowe, L., & Houle, D. (1996). The lex paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition-dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 263, 1415-1421.
114. Russell, D. C. (2006). Raise your hand if you think I am attractive: Second and fourth digit ratio as a predictor of self- and other-ratings of attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 997-1005.
115. Saino, N., Romano, M., & Innocenti, P. (2006). Length of index and ring fingers differentially influence sexual attractiveness of men’s and women’s hands. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60, 447-454.
116. Santos, P. S. C., Schinemann, J. A., Gabardo, J., & Bicalho, M. D. (2005). New evidence that the MHC influences odor perception in humans: A study with 58 southern Brazilian students. Hormones and Behavior, 47, 384-388.
117. Scarbrough, P. S., & Johnston, V. S. (2005). Individual differences in women’s facial preferences as a function of digit ratio and mental rotation ability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 509-526.
118. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 1318-1321.
119. Scheyd, G. J. (2002). Reproductive value, fertility, and age preferences in human mating. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
120. Scheyd, G. J. (2003, June). Individual differences in attraction: Evidence for a facultative calibration? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Lincoln, NE.
121. Simmons, L. W., Rhodes, G., Peters, M., & Koehler. N. (2004). Are human preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability? Behavioral Ecology, 15, 864-871.
122. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of the waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
123. Singh, D. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-tohip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1089-1101.
124. Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of the waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women’s attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 484-507.
125. Skarstein, F., Folstad, I., Liljedal, S., & Grahn, M. (2005). MHC and fertilization success in the Artic charr (Salvenlinus alpinus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 57, 374-380.
126. Streeter, S. A., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of “a critical test.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 89-98.
127. Sugiyama, L. S. (2004). Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-tohip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 51-62.
128. Swaddle, J. P., & Reierson, G. W. (2002). Testosterone increases the perceived dominance but not attractiveness of human males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 2285-2289.
129. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
130. Tassinary, L. G., & Hansen, K. A. (1998). A critical test of the waist-to-hip-ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness. Psychological Science, 9, 150-155.
131. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237-270.
132. Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., Miller, R. D., Scheyd, G. J., McCollough, J., & Franklin, M. (2003). MHC, symmetry, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 668-678.
133. Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 105-120.
134. Tovee, M. J., Hancock, P. J. B., Mahmoodi, S., Singleton, B. R. R., & Cornelissen, P. L. (2002). Human female attractiveness: Waveform analysis of body shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 2205-2213.
135. Trivers, R., Manning, J. T., & Jacobson, A. (2006). A longitudinal study of digit ratio (2D:4D) and other finger ratios in Jamaican children. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 150-156.
136. Wade, T. J., Shanley, A., & Imm, M. (2004). Second to fourth digit ratios and individual differences in women’s self-perceived attractiveness, self-esteem, and body-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 799-804.
137. Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997). Body odor preference in men and women: Do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 1471-1479.
138. Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 260, 245-249.
139. Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635-653.
140. Winkler, E. M., & Kirchengast, S. (1994). Body dimensions and differential fertility in Kung San males from Namibia. American Journal of Human Biology, 6, 203-213.
141. Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G. K., Curran, M., Baird, J., & Boyse, E. A. (2000). Parent-progeny recognition as a function of MHC odortype identity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 97, 10500-10502.
142. Yu, D. W., & Shepard, G. H. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, 396, 321-322.
143. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection-A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretetical Biology, 53, 205-214.
144. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167-185.
145. Zeh, J. A., & Zeh, D. W. (2001). Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Animal Behavior, 61, 1051-1063.