Advertisement

Evolutionary Psychological Science

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 447–453 | Cite as

Perfectionism and Relationship Status Influence Health Evaluations of Faces with Limbal Rings

  • Donald F. SaccoEmail author
  • Mitch Brown
  • Mary M. Medlin
Research Article

Abstract

Research consistently demonstrates that limbal rings are a visual cue to health, given their peak vibrancy is observed in healthy individuals. Such perceptual acuity toward limbal rings is especially apparent among women evaluating male faces. The current research was designed as a replication and extension of previous findings demonstrating how women perceive limbal rings. Additionally, we sought to determine if this preference was moderated by relationship status and related to individual differences in perfectionistic tendencies, consistent with past research demonstrating moderation of good genes preferences by personality and relationship status. Women evaluated the perceived health of faces with and without limbal rings before responding to measures assessing perfectionistic tendencies. We replicated previous findings indicating that limbal rings are indeed a health cue, particularly in male faces. Furthermore, we extended previous findings by demonstrating that women higher in other-oriented perfectionism, a dimension of perfectionism associated with exceedingly high criteria for others’ abilities, perceive faces with limbal rings as particularly healthy. Importantly, this perceptual acuity was only apparent among single women. We frame results in terms of how perfectionism facilitates recognition of good gene cues.

Keywords

Limbal rings Relationship status Perfectionism Face perception 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abed, R., Mehta, S., Figueredo, A. J., Aldridge, S., Balson, H., Meyer, C., & Palmer, R. (2012). Eating disorders and intrasexual competition: testing an evolutionary hypothesis among young women. The Scientific World Journal, 290813.Google Scholar
  2. Aitken, S. J., Lyons, M., & Jonason, P. K. (2013). Dads or cads? Women’s strategic decisions in the mating game. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, M., Sacco, D. F., & Medlin, M. (in press). Women’s short-term mating goals elicit avoidance of faces whose eyes lack limbal rings. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. Google Scholar
  4. Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2017). Unrestricted sociosexuality predicts preferences for extraverted male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2018). Put a (limbal) ring on it: women perceive men’s limbal rings as a health cue in short-term mating domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M., Sacco, D. F., & Medlin, M. (in press). Women’s short-term mating goals elicit avoidance of faces whose eyes lack limbal rings. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. Brumbaugh, C. C., Baren, A., & Agishtein, P. (2014). Attraction to attachment insecurity: flattery, appearance, and status’s role in mate preferences. Personal Relationships, 21, 288–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavallotti, C., & Cerulli, L. (2008). Age-related changes of the human eye. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, W. E., Abney, S., Perekslis, S., Eshun, S. L., & Dunn, R. (2018). Multidimensional perfectionism and perceptions of potential relationship partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1167–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffmann, A., Stoeber, J., & Musch, J. (2015). Multidimensional perfectionism and assortative mating: a perfect date? Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ilicic, J., Baxter, S. M., & Kulczynski, A. (2016). White eyes are the window to the pure soul: metaphorical association and overgeneralization effects for spokespeople with limbal rings. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33, 840–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 606–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han, C., ... & O’Shea, K. J. (2018). No compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity track changes in women’s hormonal status. Psychological Science, 29, 996–1005.Google Scholar
  16. Kampe, K. K., Frith, C. D., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, U. (2001). Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature, 413, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 951–969.Google Scholar
  18. Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. (2019). Evidence supporting nubility and reproductive value as the key to human female physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m not hot, are you hot or not? Physical-attractiveness evaluations and dating preferences as a function of one’s own attractiveness. Psychological Science, 19, 669–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levinson, C. A., Rodebaugh, T. L., White, E. K., Menatti, A. R., Weeks, J. W., Iacovino, J. M., & Warren, C. S. (2013). Social appearance anxiety, perfectionism, and fear of negative evaluation. Distinct or shared risk factors for social anxiety and eating disorders? Appetite, 67, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li, N. P., Smith, A. R., Yong, J. C., & Brown, T. A. (2014). Intrasexual competition and other theories of eating restriction. In V. A. Weekes-Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 323–346). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and temporal context of relationship influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, B, 269, 1095–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lustgraaf, C., & Sacco, D. F. (2015). Sociosexuality and relationship status interact to predict facial symmetry preferences. Human Ethology Bulletin, 30, 3–9.Google Scholar
  25. Lyons, M., & Blanchard, A. (2016). “I could see, in the depth of his eyes, my own beauty reflected”: Women's assortative preference for narcissistic, but not for Machiavellian or psychopathic male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 40–44.Google Scholar
  26. Medlin, M. M., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2018). That’s what she said! Perceived mate value of clean and dirty humor displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montoya, R. M., Kershaw, C., & Prosser, J. L. (2018). A meta-analytic investigation of the relation between interpersonal attraction and enacted behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 673–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peshek, D., Semmaknejad, N., Hoffman, D., & Foley, P. (2011). Preliminary evidence that the limbal ring influences facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. R. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness, symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cultural Research, 47(2), 162–197.Google Scholar
  30. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Palermo, R., Simmons, L. W., Peters, M., Lee, K., Halberstadt, J., & Crawford, J. R. (2007). Perceived health contributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism. Perception, 36, 1244–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Sefcek, J. A. (2009). Sociosexuality and face perception: unrestricted sexual orientation facilitates sensitivity to female facial cues. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 777–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sacco, D. F., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2012). The roles of sociosexual orientation and relationship status in women’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1044–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shin, J. E., Suh, E. M., Li, N. P., Eo, K., Chong, S. C., & Tsai, M. H. (2019). Darling, get closer to me: spatial proximity amplifies interpersonal liking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shyu, B. P., & Wyatt, H. J. (2009). Appearance of the human eye: optical contributions to the “limbal ring”. Optometry and Vision Science, 86, E1069–E1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoeber, J. (2014). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoeber, J. (2015). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism: further findings. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37, 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stoeber, J., & Yang, H. (2015). Physical appearance perfectionism explains variance in eating disorder symptoms above general perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang, H., & Stoeber, J. (2012). The physical appearance perfectionism scale: development and preliminary validation. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald F. Sacco
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mitch Brown
    • 1
  • Mary M. Medlin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyThe University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations