Human Nature

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 237–269 | Cite as

Human facial beauty

Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance
  • Randy Thornhill
  • Steven W. Gangestad


It is hypothesized that human faces judged to be attractive by people possess two features—averageness and symmetry—that promoted adaptive mate selection in human evolutionary history by way of production of offspring with parasite resistance. Facial composites made by combining individual faces are judged to be attractive, and more attractive than the majority of individual faces. The composites possess both symmetry and averageness of features. Facial averageness may reflect high individual protein heterozygosity and thus an array of proteins to which parasites must adapt. Heterozygosity may be an important defense of long-lived hosts against parasites when it occurs in portions of the genome that do not code for the essential features of complex adaptations. In this case heterozygosity can create a hostile microenvironment for parasites without disrupting adaptation. Facial bilateral symmetry is hypothesized to affect positive beauty judgments because symmetry is a certification of overall phenotypic quality and developmental health, which may be importantly influenced by parasites. Certain secondary sexual traits are influenced by testosterone, a hormone that reduces immunocompetence. Symmetry and size of the secondary sexual traits of the face (e.g., cheek bones) are expected to correlate positively and advertise immunocompetence honestly and therefore to affect positive beauty judgments. Facial attractiveness is predicted to correlate with attractive, nonfacial secondary sexual traits; other predictions from the view that parasite-driven selection led to the evolution of psychological adaptations of human beauty perception are discussed. The view that human physical attractiveness and judgments about human physical attractiveness evolved in the context of parasite-driven selection leads to the hypothesis that both adults and children have a species-typical adaptation to the problem of identifying and favoring healthy individuals and avoiding parasite-susceptible individuals. It is proposed that this adaptation guides human decisions about nepotism and reciprocity in relation to physical attractiveness.

Key words

Aesthetics Fluctuating asymmetry Heterozygosity Mate choice Nepotism Parasites Reciprocity Sexual reproduction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, J., and W. H. Stimson 1988 Sex Hormones and the Course of Parasitic Infection.Parasitology Today 4:189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alley, T. R., and M. R. Cunningham 1991 Averaged Faces Are Attractive, but Very Attractive Faces Are Not Average.Psychological Science 2:123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alley, T. R., and K. A. Hildebrandt 1988 Determinants and Consequences of Facial Aesthetics. InSocial and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces, T. R. Alley, ed. Pp. 101–140. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. M., and R. M. May 1982 Coevolution of Hosts and Parasites.Parasitology 85:411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 1983 Epidemiology and Genetics in the Coevolution of Parasites and Hosts.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 219:281–313.Google Scholar
  6. Bailit, H. L., P. L. Workman, J. D. Niswander, and J. C. Maclean 1970 Dental Asymmetry as an Indicator of Genetic and Environmental Conditions in Human Populations.Human Biology 42:626–638.Google Scholar
  7. Behnke, J. M. 1990Parasites: Immunity and Pathology. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, G. 1982The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, G., and J. Maynard Smith 1987 Short-term Selection for Recombination among Mutually Antagonistic Species.Nature 328:66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernstein, I. H., T. Lin, and P. McClellan 1982 Cross-and Within-racial Judgments of Attractiveness.Perception and Psychophysics 32:495–503.Google Scholar
  11. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. 1990 Kipsigis Women Prefer Wealthy Men: Evidence for Female Choice in Mammals?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27:255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgia, G. 1979 Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Mating Systems. InSexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum, eds. Pp. 19–80. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bradbury, J., and M. Andersson, eds. 1987Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Burt, A., and G. Bell 1987 Mammalian Chiasma Frequencies as a Test of Two Theories of Recombination.Nature 326:803–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M. 1989 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Testing in 37 Cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charlesworth, B. 1988 The Evolution of Mate Choice in a Fluctuating Environment.Journal of Theoretical Biology 130:191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham, M. R. 1986 Measuring the Physical in Physical Attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the Sociobiology of Female Facial Beauty.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cunningham, M. R., A. P. Barbee, and C. L. Pike 1990 What Do Women Want? Facialmetric Assessment of Multiple Motives in the Perception of Male Facial Physical Attractiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dabbs, J. M., Jr., and R. Morris 1990 Testosterone, Social Class and Antisocial Behavior in a Sample of 4,462 Men.American Psychological Society 1:209–211.Google Scholar
  20. Dengrove, E. 1961 Sex Differences. InThe Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 2, A. Ellis and A. Abarbanel, eds. Pp. 931–938. London: Corsano.Google Scholar
  21. Dion, K., E. Berscheid, and E. Walster 1972 What Is Beautiful Is Good.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 24:285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eagly, A. H., R. D. Ashmore, M. G. Makhijani, and L. C. Longo 1991 What Is Beautiful Is Good, But....: A Meta-analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype.Psychological Bulletin 110:109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eshel, I., and W. D. Hamilton 1984 Parent-offspring Correlation in Fitness under Fluctuating Selection.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 222:1–14.Google Scholar
  24. Essock-Vitale, S. M. 1984 The Reproductive Success of Wealthy Americans.Ethology and Sociobiology 5:45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Farr, J. A. 1983 The Inheritance of Quantitative Fitness Traits in Guppies,Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poecilidae).Evolution 37:1193–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feingold, A. 1990 Gender Differences in Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Romantic Attraction: A Comparison across Five Research Paradigms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fisher, R. A. 1958The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fölstad, I., and A. J. Karter 1992 Parasites, Bright Males and the Immunocompetence Handicap.American Naturalist 139:603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeland, W. J. 1976 Pathogens in the Evolution of Primate Sociality.Biotropica 8:12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gangestad, S. W., and D. M. Buss In press Pathogen Prevalence and Human Mate Preferences.Ethology and Sociobiology.Google Scholar
  31. Gangestad, S. W., R. Thornhill, and R. A. Yeo In press Facial Attractiveness, Developmental Stability and Fluctuating Asymmetry.Ethology and Sociobiology.Google Scholar
  32. Glesener, R. R., and D. Tilman 1978 Sexuality and the Components of Environmental Uncertainty: Clues from Geographic Parthenogenesis in Terrestrial Animals.American Naturalist 112:659–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldman, W., and P. Lewis 1977 Beautiful Is Good: Evidence that the Physically Attractive Are More Socially Skilled.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13:125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grammer, K., and R. Thornhill 1993 Human Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Selection: The Roles of Averageness and Symmetry. Ms. in authors’ possession. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  35. Grossmann, C. J. 1985 Interactions between the Gonadal Steroids and the Immune System.Science 227:257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hamilton, W. D. 1980 Sex versus Non-sex versus Parasite.Oikos 35:282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 1993 Inbreeding in Egypt and in This Book. InThe Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. N. W. Thornhill, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hamilton, W. D., and M. Zuk 1982 Heritable True Fitness and Bright Birds: A Role for Parasites?Science 218:384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hausfater, G., and R. Thornhill 1990 Parasites and Sexual Selection (editors’ introduction).American Zoologist 30:2.Google Scholar
  40. Herman, C. P., M. P. Zanna, and E. Tory Higgins, eds. 1986Physical Appearance, Stigma and Social Behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Hill, A. V. S, C. E. M. Allsopp, D. Kwiatkowski, N. M. Anstey, P. Twumasi, P. A. Rowe, S. Bennett, D. Brewster, A. J. McMichael, and B. M. Greenwood 1991 Common West African HLA Antigens Are Associated with Protection from Severe Malaria.Nature 352:595–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hole, J. W., Jr. 1987Human Anatomy and Physiology, 4th ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  43. Howard, J. C. 1991 Disease and Evolution.Nature 352:565–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hubschman, J. H., and M. A. Stack 1992 Parasite-induced Changes inChironomus decorus (Diptera: Chironomidae).Journal of Parasitology 78:872–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jaenike, J. 1978 An Hypothesis to Account for the Maintenance of Sex with Populations.Evolutionary Theory 3:191–194.Google Scholar
  46. Johnston, V. S., and M. Franklin In press Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?Ethology and Sociobiology.Google Scholar
  47. Jones, J. S. 1987 An Asymmetrical View of Fitness.Nature 325:298–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaplan, H., and K. Hill 1985 Hunting Ability and Reproductive Success among Male Ache Foragers.Current Anthropology 26:131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kennedy, C. E. J., J. A. Endler, S. L. Poyton, and H. McMinn 1987 Parasite Load Predicts Mate Choice in Guppies.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 21:291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kirkpatrick, M. 1987 Sexual Selection by Female Choice in Polygynous Animals.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18:43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kodric-Brown, A., and M. E. Hohmann 1990 Sexual Selection Is Stabilizing Selection in Pupfish (Cyprinodon pecosensis).Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 40:113–123.Google Scholar
  52. Ladle, R. J. 1992 Parasites and Sex: Catching the Red Queen.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Langlois, J. H., and L. A. Roggman 1990 Attractive Faces Are Only Average.Psychological Science 1:115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lerner, I. M. 1954Genetic Homeostatis. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  55. Leary, R. F., and F. W. Allendorf 1989 Fluctuating Asymmetry as an Indicator of Stress: Implications for Conservation Biology.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4:214–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levin, D. A. 1975 Pest Pressure and Recombination Systems in Plants.American Naturalist 109:437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Livshits, G., and E. Kobyliansky 1991 Fluctuating Asymmetry as a Possible Measure of Developmental Homeostasis in Humans: A Review.Human Biology 63:441–466.Google Scholar
  58. Low, B. S. 1990 Marriage Systems and Pathogen Stress in Human Societies.American Zoologist 30:325–339.Google Scholar
  59. Loye, J. E., and M. Zuk, eds. 1991Bird-Parasite Interactions: Ecology, Behavior and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Manning, J. T., and A. T. Chamberlain In press Fluctuating Asymmetry, Sexual Selection and Canine Teeth in Primates.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B.Google Scholar
  61. Manning, J. T., and M. A. Hartley 1991 Symmetry and Ornamentation Are Correlated in the Peacock’s Train.Animal Behaviour 42:1020–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maret, S. M. 1983 Attractiveness Ratings of Photographs of Blacks by Cruzans and Americans.The Journal of Psychology 115:113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maret, S. M., and G. A. Harling 1985 Cross-cultural Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness: Ratings of Photos of Whites by Cruzans and Americans.Perceptual and Motor Skills 60:163–166.Google Scholar
  64. Markow, T. A., and J. P. Ricker 1992 Male Size, Developmental Stability and Mating Success in Natural Populations on ThreeDrosophila Species.Heredity 69:122–127.Google Scholar
  65. Maruyama, G., and N. Miller 1981 Physical Attractiveness and Personality. InProgress in Experimental Personality Research, vol. 10, B. A. Maher and W. B. Maher, eds. Pp. 203–280. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  66. Maynard Smith, J. 1978The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. McMinn, H. 1990 Effects of the Nematode ParasiteCamallanus cotti on Sexual and Nonsexual Behaviors in the Guppy (Poecilia reticulata).American Zoologist 30:245–249.Google Scholar
  68. Mitton, J. B. 1993 Theory and Data Pertinent to the Relationship between Heterozygosity and Fitness. InThe Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, N. W. Thornhill, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  69. Mitton, J. B., and M. C. Grant 1984 Associations among Protein Heterozygosity, Growth Rate and Developmental Homeostasis.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15:479–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mitton, J. B., W. S. F. Schuster, E. G. Cothran, and J. C. De Fries In press the Correlation between the Individual Heterozygosity of Parents and Their Offspring.Heredity.Google Scholar
  71. Møller, A. P. 1988 Female Choice Selects for Male Sexual Tail Ornaments in the Monogamous Swallow.Nature 332:640–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 1990a Parasites and Sexual Selection: Current Status of the Hamilton and Zuk Hypothesis.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 3:319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 1990b Fluctuating Asymmetry in Male Sexual Ornaments May Reliably Reveal Male Quality.Animal Behaviour 40:1185–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 1990c Male Tail Length and Female Mate Choice in the Monogamous SwallowHirundo rustica.Animal Behaviour 39:458–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 1990d Effects of a Haematophagus Mite on the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica): A Test of the Hamilton and Zuk Hypothesis.Evolution 44:771–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 1992a Female Swallow Preference for Symmetrical Male Sexual Ornaments.Nature 357:238–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 1992b Patterns of Fluctuating Asymmetry in Weapons: Evidence for Reliable Signalling of Quality in Beetle Horns and Bird Spurs.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 248:199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. In press Parasites Differentially Increase the Degree of Fluctuating Asymmetry in Secondary Sexual Characters.Journal of Evolutionary Biology.Google Scholar
  79. Møller, A. P., and J. Höglund 1991 Patterns of Fluctuating Symmetry in Avian Feather Ornaments: Implications for Modeling Sexual Selection.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 245:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Møller, A. P., and A. Pomiankowski In press Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Selection.Genetica.Google Scholar
  81. O’Brien, S. J., and J. F. Evermann 1988 The Interface of Epidemiology and Genetic Diversity in Free-Ranging Animal Populations.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3:254–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Palmer, R. A., and C. Strobeck 1986 Fluctuating Asymmetry: Measurement, Analysis, Patterns.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17:391–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Parsons, P. A. 1990 Fluctuating Asymmetry: An Epigenetic Measure of Stress.Biological Review 65:131–145.Google Scholar
  84. Partridge, L. 1983 Non-random Mating and Offspring Fitness. InMate Choice, P. Bateson, ed. Pp. 227–255. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Petrie, M., T. R. Halliday, and C. Sanders 1991 Peahens Prefer Peacocks with Elaborate Trains.Animal Behaviour 41:323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Polak, M. In press Parasitic Infection Increases Fluctuating Asymmetry of MaleDrosophila nigrospiracula: Implications for Sexual Selection.Genetica.Google Scholar
  87. Potts, W. K., C. Jo Manning, and E. K. Wakeland 1991 Mating Patterns in Semi-natural Populations of Mice Influenced by MHC Genotype.Nature 352:619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rice, W. R. 1983 Parent-offspring Pathogen Transmission: A Selective Agent Promoting Sexual Reproduction.American Naturalist 121:187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sauer, K. P., R. Thornhill, and S. Fleck In press On the Genetic Relationships between a Zahavian Handicap of Fathers and Offspring Quality in a Scorpionfly.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.Google Scholar
  90. Seger, J., and W. D. Hamilton 1988 Parasites and Sex. InThe Evolution of Sex, R. E. Michod and B. R. Levin, eds. Pp. 14–31. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  91. Sherman, P. W., T. D. Seeley, and H. K. Reeve 1988 Parasites, Pathogens and Polyandry in Social Hymenoptera.American Naturalist 131:602–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sigall, H., and D. Landy 1973 Radiating Beauty: The Effects of Having a Physically Attractive Partner on Person Perception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28:218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Simpson, J. A., and S. W. Gangestad 1992 Sociosexuality and Romantic Partner Choice.Journal of Personality 60:31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Singh, D. In press Adaptive Significance of Female Physical Attractiveness: Role of Waist-to-hip Ratio (WHR).Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  95. Slade, R. W. 1992 Limited MHC Polymorphism in the Southern Elephant Seal: Implications for MHC Evolution and Marine Mammal Population Biology.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 249:163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Snyder, M., E. D. Tanke, and E. Berscheid 1977 Social Behavior and Interpersonal Perception: On the Self-Fulfilling Nature of Social Stereotypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:656–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Soulé, M. 1982 Allometric Variation, 1: The Theory and Some Consequences.American Naturalist 120:751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Soulé, M., and J. Cuzin-Roudy 1982 Allometric Variation, 2: Developmental Instability of Extreme Phenotypes.American Naturalist 120:765–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Strzalko, J., and K. A. Kaszycka 1991 Physical Attractiveness: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variability of Assessments.Social Biology 39:170–176.Google Scholar
  100. Symons, D. 1979The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  101. 1987 An Evolutionary Approach: Can Darwin’s View of Life Shed Light on Human Sexuality? InTheories of Human Sexuality, J. H. Geer and W. T. O’Donohue, eds. Pp. 91–125. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  102. Thiessen, D., and B. Gregg 1980 Human Assortative Mating and Genetic Equilibrium: An Evolutionary Perspective.Ethology and Sociobiology 1:111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Thanakar, J. N., and S. Iwakawi 1979 Cross-cultural Comparisons in Interpersonal Attraction of Females Toward Males.Journal of Social Psychology 108:121–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thornhill, N. W., ed. 1993The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  105. Thornhill, R. 1992a Fluctuating Asymmetry and the Mating System of the Japanese Scorpionfly,Panorpa japonica.Animal Behaviour 44:867–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 1992b Female Preference for the Pheromone of Males with Low Fluctuating Asymmetry in the Japanese Scorpionfly (Panorpa japonica: Mecoptera).Behavioral Ecology 3:277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 1992c Fluctuating Asymmetry, Interspecific Aggression and Male Mating Tactics in Two Species of Japanese Scorpionflies.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 30:357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Thornhill, R., and J. Alcock 1983The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Thornhill, R., and K. P. Sauer 1991 The Notal Organ of the ScorpionflyPanorpa vulgaris: An Adaptation to Coerce Mating Duration.Behavioral Ecology 2:156–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 1992 Paternal Effects on the Fighting Ability of Sons and Daughters and the Mating Success of Sons in a Scorpionfly.Animal Behaviour 43:255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thornhill, R., and N. W. Thornhill 1983 Human Rape: An Evolutionary Analysis.Ethology and Sociobiology 4:137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Tooby, J. 1982 Pathogens, Polymorphism and the Evolution of Sex.Journal of Theoretical Biology 97:557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Tooby, J., and L. Cosmides 1990 On the Universality of Human Nature and the Uniqueness of the Individual: The Role of Genetics and Adaptations.Journal of Personality 58:17–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Townsend, J. M., and G. D. Levy 1990 Effects of Potential Partners’ Physical Attractiveness and Socioeconomic Status on Sexuality and Partner Selection: Sex Differences in Reported Preferences of University Students.Archives of Sexual Behavior 19:149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Trivers, R. L. 1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. InSexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971, B. Campbell, ed. Pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  116. 1985Social Evolution. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  117. Walster, E., V. Aronson, D. Abrahams, and L. Rottman 1966 Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4:508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Watson, P. W., and R. Thornhill In press Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Selection.Trends in Ecology and Evolution.Google Scholar
  119. Watt, W. B., P. A. Carter, and K. Donohue 1986 Females’ Choice of “Good Genotypes” as Mates Is Promoted by an Insect Mating System.Science 233:1187–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Watt, W. B., R. C. Cassin, and M. S. Swan 1983 Adaptation of Specific Loci, III: Field Behavior and Survivorship Differences amongColias PGI Genotypes Are Predictable fromin vitro Biochemistry.Genetics 103:725–739.Google Scholar
  121. Wedekind, C. 1992 Detailed Information about Parasites Revealed by Sexual Ornamentation.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 247:169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Williams, G. C. 1966Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  123. 1975Sex and Evolution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Zahavi, A. 1975 Mate Selection: A Selection for a Handicap.Journal of Theoretical Biology 53:205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zakharov, V. M. 1989 Future Prospects for Population Phenogenetics.Soviet Scientific Reviews, Section F, Physiology and General Biology Reviews 4(3):1–79.Google Scholar
  126. Zakharov, V. M., E. Pankakoski, B. I. Sheftel, A. Peltonen, and I. Hanski 1991 Developmental Stability and Population Dynamics in the Common Shrew.American Naturalist 138:797–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Zuk, M. 1990 Reproductive Strategies and Disease Susceptibility: An Evolutionary Viewpoint.Parasitology Today 6:231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 1992 The Role of Parasites in Sexual Selection: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Advances in the Study of Behavior 21:39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zuk, M., K. Johnson, R. Thornhill, and J. D. Ligon 1990 Parasites and Male Ornaments in Free-ranging and Captive Red Jungle Fowl.Behavior 114:232–248.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randy Thornhill
    • 1
  • Steven W. Gangestad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque

Personalised recommendations