Human Nature

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 271–296 | Cite as

Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations

  • Doug Jones
  • Kim Hill
Article

Abstract

The theory of sexual selection suggests several possible explanations for the development of standards of physical attractiveness in humans. Asymmetry and departures from average proportions may be markers of the breakdown of developmental stability. Supernormal traits may present age- and sex-typical features in exaggerated form. Evidence from social psychology suggests that both average proportions and (in females) “neotenous” facial traits are indeed more attractive. Using facial photographs from three populations (United States, Brazil, Paraguayan Indians), rated by members of the same three populations, plus Russians and Venezuelan Indians, we show that age, average features, and (in females) feminine/neotenous features all play a role in facial attractiveness.

Key words

Sexual selection Physical attractiveness Fluctuating asymmetry Evolutionary psychology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. Behrents, R. G. 1985Growth in the Aging Craniofacial Skeleton. Center for Human Growth and Development, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, P., and D. Perrett 1992 Face to Face with the Perfect Image.New Scientist 133:32–35.Google Scholar
  4. Brink, P. J. 1989 The Fattening Room among the Annang of Nigeria.Medical Anthropology 12:131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, P. J. 1992 The Biocultural Evolution of Obesity: An Anthropological View. InObesity, P. Bjorntorp and B. N. Brodoff, eds. Pp. 320–329. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M. 1989 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin, H. 1991The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Natural Selection from Darwin to Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cunningham, M. R. 1986 Measuring the Physical in Physical Attractiveness: Quasi-experiments in the Sociobiology of Female Facial Beauty.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin, C. 1981The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1871)Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch, C. K. 1987 Disproportion in Psychiatric Syndromes. InAnthropometric Facial Proportions in Medicine, L. G. Farkas and I. R. Munro, eds. Pp. 131–141. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.Google Scholar
  11. Ellis, H. 1942Studies in the Psychology of Sex. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Enlow, D. H. 1990Facial Growth. Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  13. Enquist, M., and A. Arak 1993 Selection of Exaggerated Male Traits by Female Aesthetic Senses.Nature 361:446–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farkas, L. G., and I. R. Munro, eds. 1987Anthropometric Facial Proportions in Medicine. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.Google Scholar
  15. Ford, C. S., and F. Beach 1951Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  16. Franklin, J. H., ed. 1968Color and Race. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Garn, S. M., M. LaVelle, and H. Smith 1985 Quantification of Dysmorphogenesis: Pattern Variability Index, σz.American Journal of Roentgenology 144:365–369.Google Scholar
  18. Hatfield, E. 1986Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hoetink, H. 1967The Two Variants in Caribbean Race Relations: A Contribution to the Sociology of Segmented Societies. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Koeslag, J. 1990 Koinophilia Groups Sexual Creatures into Species, Promotes Stasis, and Stabilizes Social Behavior.Journal of Theoretical Biology (144):15–35.Google Scholar
  21. Langlois, J. H., and L. A. Roggman 1990 Attractive Faces Are Only Average.Psychological Science 1:115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langlois, J., L. A. Roggman, and J. M. Ritter 1987 Infant Preferences for Attractive Faces: Rudiments of a Stereotype?Developmental Psychology 23:363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lele, S., and J. T. Richtsmeier 1991 Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis: A Coordinate-Free Approach for Comparing Biological Shapes Using Landmark Data.American Journal of Physical Anthropology 86:415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Livshits, G., and E. Kobylianski 1991 Fluctuating Asymmetry as a Possible Measure of Developmental Homeostasis in Humans: A Review.Human Biology 63:441–466.Google Scholar
  25. McArthur, L. Z., and D. S. Berry 1983 Impressions of Baby-faced Adults.Social Cognition 2:315–342.Google Scholar
  26. Møller, A. P. 1990 Fluctuating Asymmetry in Male Ornaments May Reliably Reveal Male Quality.Animal Behaviour 40:1185–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Møller, A. P., and J. Höglund 1991 Patterns of Fluctuating Asymmetry in Avian Feather Ornaments: Implications for Models of Sexual Selection.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B 245:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parsons, P. A. 1990 Fluctuating Asymmetry: An Epigenetic Measure of Stress.Biological Reviews 65:131–145.Google Scholar
  29. Polhemus, T. 1988Body Styles. Luton, Bedfordshire: Lennard.Google Scholar
  30. Riedl, B. I. M. 1990 Morphologisch-metrische Merkmale des Männlichen und Weiblichen Partnerleitbildes in Ihrer Bedeutung für die Wahl des Ehegatten.Homo 41:72–85.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, K., M. Wilson, and R. Hall 1992The Color Complex: The Politics of Skin Color among African-Americans. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  32. Ryan, M. J., J. H. Fox, W. Wilczynski, and A. S. Rand 1990 Sexual Selection by Sensory Exploitation in the FrogPhysalaemus pustulosis.Nature 343:66–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Staddon, J. E. R. 1975 A Note on the Evolutionary Significance of “Supernormal Stimuli.”American Naturalist 109:541–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strzałko, J., and K. A. Kaszycka 1992 Physical Attractiveness: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variability of Assessments.Social Biology 39:170–176.Google Scholar
  35. Symons, D. 1979The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. ten Cate, C., and P. Bateson 1989 Sexual Imprinting and a Preference for “Supernormal” Partners in Japanese Quail.Animal Behaviour 38:356–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thornhill, R. 1992 Fluctuating Asymmetry and the Mating System of the Japanese Scorpionfly,Panorpa japonica.Animal Behaviour 44:867–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waddington, C. H. 1957The Strategy of the Genes: A Discussion of Some Aspects of Theoretical Biology. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  39. Westermarck, E. 1891The History of Human Marriage. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, G. C. 1966Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 1992Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doug Jones
    • 1
  • Kim Hill
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor
  2. 2.University of New MexicoUSA

Personalised recommendations