Skip to main content

Estimating the Sex-Specific Effects of Genes on Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Dimorphism

Behavior Genetics volume 44, pages 270–281 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Human facial attractiveness and facial sexual dimorphism (masculinity–femininity) are important facets of mate choice and are hypothesized to honestly advertise genetic quality. However, it is unclear whether genes influencing facial attractiveness and masculinity–femininity have similar, opposing, or independent effects across sex, and the heritability of these phenotypes is poorly characterized. To investigate these issues, we assessed facial attractiveness and facial masculinity–femininity in the largest genetically informative sample (n = 1,580 same- and opposite-sex twin pairs and siblings) to assess these questions to date. The heritability was ~0.50–0.70 for attractiveness and ~0.40–0.50 for facial masculinity–femininity, indicating that, despite ostensible selection on genes influencing these traits, substantial genetic variation persists in both. Importantly, we found evidence for intralocus sexual conflict, whereby alleles that increase masculinity in males have the same effect in females. Additionally, genetic influences on attractiveness were shared across the sexes, suggesting that attractive fathers tend to have attractive daughters and attractive mothers tend to have attractive sons.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Bem SL (1974) The measurement of psychological androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol 42(2):155–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boker SM, Neale MC, Maes HH, Wilde MJ, Spiegel M, Brick TR, Fox J et al (2011) OpenMx: an open source extended structural equation modeling framework. Psychometrika 76(2):306

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonduriansky R, Chenoweth SF (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol (Pers Edn) 24(5):280–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinople A (1973) Masculinity–femininity: an exception to a famous dictum? Psychol Bull 80(5):389–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwell RE, Perrett DI (2008) Sexy sons and sexy daughters: the influence of parents’ facial characteristics on offspring. Anim Behav 76(6):1843–1853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox RM, Calsbeek R (2009) Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. Am Nat 173(2):176–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eaves LJ (1977) Inferring the causes of human variation. J R Stat Soc A (General) 140(3):324–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaves LJ (2009) Putting the ‘human’ back in genetics: modeling the extended kinships of twins. Twin Res Hum Genet 12(01):1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eaves LJ, Silberg JL (2003) Modulation of gene expression by genetic and environmental heterogeneity in timing of a developmental milestone. Behav Genet 33(1):1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eaves LJ, Last KA, Young PA, Martin NG (1978) Model-fitting approaches to the analysis of human behaviour. Heredity 41(3):249–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eaves LJ, Silberg JL, Foley D, Bulik C, Maes HH, Erkanli A, Worthman C (2004) Genetic and environmental influences on the relative timing of pubertal change. Twin Res 7(5):471–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn DJ, Roff DA (2006) The quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism: assessing the importance of sex-linkage. Heredity 97(5):319–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad SW, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ, Garver-Apgar CE, Christensen PN (2004) Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychol Sci 15(3):203–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 108(3):233–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130(1):195–204

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hume DK, Montgomerie R (2001) Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of “quality” in women and men. Evol Hum Behav 22(2):93–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jinks JL, Fulker DW (1970) Comparison of the biometrical genetical, MAVA, and classical approaches to the analysis of the human behavior. Psychol Bull 73(5):311–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller MC (2006) The role of mutations in human mating. In: Geher G, Miller G (eds) Mating intelligence: sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller MC, Coventry WL (2005) Quantifying and addressing parameter indeterminacy in the classical twin design. Twin Res Hum Genet 8(3):201–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller MC, Medland SE, Duncan LE (2010) Are extended twin family designs worth the trouble? A comparison of the bias, precision, and accuracy of parameters estimated in four twin family models. Behav Genet 40(3):377–393

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler N, Simmons LW, Rhodes G (2004) How well does second-to-fourth-digit ratio in hands correlate with other indications of masculinity in males? Proc R Soc B 271(Suppl 5):S296–S298

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 126(3):390–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moorse FR, Feinberg DR et al (2006) Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc R Soc B 273:6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AJ, Mitchem DG, Wright MJ, Martin NG, Keller MC, Zietsch BP (2013) Genetic factors increasing male facial masculinity decrease facial attractiveness of female relatives. Psychol Sci (in press)

  • Little AC, Jones BC, Burriss RP (2007) Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Horm Behav 51(5):633–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM (2008) Preferences for variation in masculinity in real male faces change across the menstrual cycle: women prefer more masculine faces when they are more fertile. Pers Individ Differ 45(6):478–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur A, Halpern C, Udry JR (1994) Dominant looking male teenagers copulate earlier. Ethol Sociobiol 15(2):87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGovern RJ, Neale MC, Kendler KS (1996) The independence of physical attractiveness and symptoms of depression in a female twin population. J Psychol 130(2):209–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mealey L, Bridgstock R, Townsend GC (1999) Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(1):151–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson IR, Marshuetz C (2005) Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion 5(4):498–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2000) Consistency and individual differences in facial attractiveness judgments: an evolutionary perspective. Soc Res 67(1):26

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 B 268(1476):1617–1623

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM et al (1998) Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394(6696):884–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prokop P, Fedor P (2011) Physical attractiveness influences reproductive success of modern man. J Ethol 29:6

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts DA (2010) Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evol Hum Behav 31(3):157–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhea S, Gross AA, Haberstick BC, Corley RP (2012) Colorado twin registry: an update. Twin Res Hum Genet 16:351–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhen T (2000) Sex-limited mutations and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 54(1):37–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, Clark A, Kalick SM, Hightower A, McKay R (2001) Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evol Hum Behav 22(1):31–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1984) Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38(4):735–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR, Chippindale AK (2001) Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J Evol Biol 14(5):685–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roney JR, Simmons ZL, Gray PB (2011) Changes in estradiol predict within-women shifts in attraction to facial cues of men’s testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36(5):742–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe DC, Clapp M, Wallis J (1987) Physical attractiveness and the personality resemblance of identical twins. Behav Genet 17(2):191–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sell A, Cosmides L, Tooby J, Sznycer D, von Rueden C, Gurven M (2009) Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proc R Soc B 276(1656):575–584. doi:10.1098/rspb 2008.1177

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slater A, Von der Schulenburg C, Brown E, Badenoch M, Butterworth G, Parsons S, Samuels C (1998) Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. Infant Behav Dev 21(2):345–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns SC, Govindaraju DR, Ewbank D, Byars SG (2012) Constraints on the coevolution of contemporary human males and females. Proc R Soc B 279(1748):4836–4844

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swaddle JP, Reierson GW (2002) Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc R Soc Lond B 269(1507):2285–2289. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1993) Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Hum Nat 4(3):33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turelli M, Barton NH (2004) Polygenic variation maintained by balancing selection: pleiotropy, sex-dependent allelic effects and G×E interactions. Genetics 166(2):1053–1079

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weeden J, Sabini J (2005) Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: a review. Psychol Bull 131(5):635–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welling LLM, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Conway CA, Law Smith MJ, Little AC et al (2007) Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with increased attraction to masculine faces. Horm Behav 52(2):156–161. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.01.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welling LLM, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Smith FG, Feinberg DR, Little AC, Al-Dujaili EA (2008) Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high. Horm Behav 54(5):703–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright MJ, Martin NG (2004) Brisbane adolescent twin study: outline of study methods and research projects. Aust J Psychol 56(2):65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the Australian Research Council (A79600334, A79801419, and DP0212016) and the National Institute of Mental Health (MH085812 and MH63207). Thanks to Marlene Grace, Ann Eldridge, Daniel Park, and David Smyth for their work with the Australian Twin Registry; to the professional research assistants at the Center on Antisocial Drug Dependence for their work with the Longitudinal Twin Study; and to the volunteer research assistants who assigned trait ratings. Thanks to Steven W. Gangestad, Margaret J. Wright, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. And, thanks to the Australian Twin Registry and Colorado Twin Registry twins and their families for their continued participation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Dorian G. Mitchem, Alicia M. Purkey, Gregory Carey, John K. Hewitt & Matthew C. Keller

  2. Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado Boulder, 447 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0447, USA

    Dorian G. Mitchem, Gregory Carey, John K. Hewitt & Matthew C. Keller

  3. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Nicholas M. Grebe

  4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Christine E. Garver-Apgar

  5. Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Timothy C. Bates

  6. Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, UK

    Rosalind Arden

  7. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Sarah E. Medland, Nicholas G. Martin & Brendan P. Zietsch

  8. School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Brendan P. Zietsch

Authors
  1. Dorian G. Mitchem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alicia M. Purkey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas M. Grebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregory Carey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christine E. Garver-Apgar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Timothy C. Bates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rosalind Arden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John K. Hewitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sarah E. Medland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nicholas G. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Brendan P. Zietsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Matthew C. Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorian G. Mitchem.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 95 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mitchem, D.G., Purkey, A.M., Grebe, N.M. et al. Estimating the Sex-Specific Effects of Genes on Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Dimorphism. Behav Genet 44, 270–281 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-013-9627-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-013-9627-5

Keywords

  • Facial attractiveness
  • Masculinity–femininity
  • Mate choice
  • Sexual selection
  • Intralocus sexual conflict
  • Evolutionary genetics
  • Twin and family studies
  • Sex limitation