International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 133–145 | Cite as

Preferences for Symmetry in Conspecific Facial Shape Among Macaca mulatta

  • Corri WaittEmail author
  • Anthony C. Little

In human males and females, bilateral symmetry of facial shape influences assessments of attractiveness. It is possible, however, that other primate species also possess preferences for conspecific facial symmetry. To assess this experimentally, we presented 13 adult rhesus macaques (8 females, 5 males) with computer-manipulated images of symmetrical and asymmetrical versions of opposite-sexed conspecific faces. We utilized looking behavior to assess visual preferences for these factors. We found significant preferences for symmetry, raising the possibility that human preferences for facial symmetry are more deeply rooted in our evolutionary history than previously realized. Our results also have implications for the use of facial shape as a mechanism for attractiveness appraisals across the Primates.


faces Macaca mulatta primate mate choice sexual selection symmetry 



The Leakey Foundation and the Department of Psychology, University of Stirling supported our study. NIH, NCRR grant CM-5-P40RR003640-13 and grants from the UPR School of Medicine supported Cayo Santiago. We would like to thank the following individuals: Paul Honess and Sarah Wolfhensohn of Veterinary Services, University of Oxford and Peter Pearce of Biomedical Services, DSTL for granting access to study animals; Peter Hancock for providing his technical expertise; David I. Perrett, Robin Dunbar, and Hannah M. Buchanan-Smith for offering their helpful advice. We extend special thanks to Sarah Fairhall and Tony Brown for all their creative input and assistance


  1. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, P. J., and Perrett, D. I. (1991). Synthesising continuous tone caricatures. Image Vis. Comput. 9: 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bercovitch, F. B. (1997). Reproductive strategies of rhesus macaques. Primates 38: 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, I. S., and Gordon, T. P. (1980). Mixed taxa introductions, hybrids and macaque systematics. In Lindburg, D. G. (ed.), The Macaques: Studies in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 125–147.Google Scholar
  5. Bielert, C., Girolami, L., and Jowell, S. (1989). An experimental examination of the colour component in visually mediated sexual arousal of the male chacma baboon (Papio ursinus). J. Zool. Lond. 219: 569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjorksten, T. A., Fowler, K., and Pomiankowski, A. (2000). What does sexual trait FA tell us about stress? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 163–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Demaria, C., and Thierry, B. (1988). Responses to animal stimulus photographs in stumptailed macaques (Macaca arctoides). Primates 29: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewsbury, D. A. (1982). Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am. Nat. 119: 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dittrich, W. (1990). Representation of faces in longtailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Ethology 85: 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dittrich, W. H. (1994). How monkeys see others: discrimination and recognition of monkeys’ shape. Behav. Proc. 33: 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixson, A. F. (1998). Primate Sexuality: Comparative Studies of Prosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Human Being, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Domb, L. G., and Pagel, M. (2001). Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature 410: 204–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Enquist, M., and Arak, A. (1994). Symmetry, beauty, and evolution. Nature 372: 169–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Enquist, M., Ghirlanda, S., Lundqvist, D., and Wachtmeister, C. (2002). An ethological theory of attractiveness. In Rhodes, G., and Zebrowitz, L. (eds.), Advances in Visual Cognition, Vol. 1: Facial Attractiveness, Ablex, Westport, CT, pp. 127–151.Google Scholar
  15. Enquist, M., and Johnstone, R. A. (1997). Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 264: 1345–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fujita, K. (1993). Role of some physical characteristics in species recognition by pigtail monkeys. Primates 34: 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujita, K., and Wantanabe, K. (1995). Visual preference for closely related species by Sulawesi macaques. Am. J. Primatol. 37: 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gauthier, C. A. (1999). Reproductive parameters and paracallosal skin color changes in captive female Guinea baboons, Papio papio. Am. J. Primatol. 47: 67–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grammer, K., and Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J. Comp. Psychol. 108: 233–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, L. T. T., Amundsen, T., and Forsgren, E. (1999). Symmetry: Attractive not only to females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 1235–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hasselmo, M. E., Rolls, E. T., and Baylis, G. C. (1989). The role of expression and identity in the face-selective responses of neurons in the temporal visual cortex of the monkey. Behav. Brain Res. 32: 203–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansson, L., Forkman, B., and Enquist, M. (2002). Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Anim. Behav. 63: 617–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnstone, R. A. (1994). Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372: 172–175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnstone, R. A., Reynolds, J. D., and Deutsch, J. C. (1996). Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50: 1382–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., and Perrett, D. I. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evol. Hum. Behav. 22: 417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Riser-Danner, L. A., and Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype? Dev. Psychol. 23: 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., and Perrett, D. I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Little, A. C., and Jones, B. C. (2003). Evidence against the perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270: 1759–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manson, J. H. (1994a). Male aggression: A cost of female mate choice in Cayo Santiago rhesus macaques. Anim. Behav. 48: 473–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manson, J. H. (1994b). Mating patterns, mate choice, and birth season heterosexual relationships in free-ranging rhesus macaques. Primates 35: 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, P., and Bateson, P. (1993). Measuring Behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  32. Mealey, L. M., Bridgstock, R., and Townsend, G. C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76: 151–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Møller, A. P. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliability reveal male quality. Anim. Behav. 40: 1185–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Møller, A. P., and Swaddle, J. P. (1997). Asymmetry, Developmental Stability and Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Owens, I. P. F., and Thompson, D. B. A. (1994). Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 258: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parga, J. (2003). Male mate choice in ringtailed lemurs (Lemur catta): The relationship between male mating effort and female reproductive potential. Am. J. Primatol. 60: 50–51.Google Scholar
  37. Parr, L. A., Winslow, J. T., Hopkins, W. D., and de Waal, F. M. B. (2000). Recognising facial cues: Individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J. Comp. Psychol. 114: 47–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pascalis, O., Petit, O., Kim, J. H., and Campbell, R. (1998). Picture perception in primates: the case of face perception. In Fagot, J. (ed.), Picture Perception in Animals, Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, pp. 263–294.Google Scholar
  39. Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S. B. P., Burt, D. M., and Perrett, D. I. (2001). Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 1617–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., and Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., and Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature 394: 884–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perrett, D. I., and Mistlin, A. J. (1990). Perception of facial characteristics by monkeys. In Stebbins, W. C., and Berkley, M. A. (eds.), Comparative Perception, Vol. II: Complex Signals, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 187–213.Google Scholar
  43. Quinsey, V. L., Earls, C., Ketsetzis, M., and Karamanoukian, A. (1996). Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest. Ethol. Sociobiol. 17: 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Radesäter, T., and Halldórsdóttir, H. (1993). Fluctuating asymmetry and forceps size in earwigs, Forficula auricularia. Anim. Behav. 45: 626–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rhodes, G., Geddes, K., Jeffery, L., Dziurawiec, S., and Clark, A. (2001a). Are average and symmetric faces attractive to infants? Discrimination and looking preferences. Perception 31: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M., and Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5: 659–669.Google Scholar
  47. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., and McKay, R. (2001b). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evol. Hum. Behav. 22: 31–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenfeld, S. A., and van Hosen, G. W. (1979). Face recognition in the rhesus monkey. Neuropsychlogica 17: 503–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rowland, D. A., and Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and colour. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 15: 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sasaki, Y., Vanduffel1, W., Knutsen, T., Tsaol, D., and Tootell, R. (2005). Symmetry activates visual cortex in human and non-human primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 3159–3163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., and Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues to good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 1913–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Singh, D. (1995). Female health, attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of breast symmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. Ethol. Sociobiol. 16: 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swaddle, J. P., Che, J. P., and Clelland, R. E. (2004). Symmetry preference as a cognitive by-product in starlings. Behaviour 141: 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swaddle, J. P., and Cuthill, I. C. (1995). Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness—symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 261: 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thornhill, R., and Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry and parasite resistance. Hum. Nat. 4: 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thornhill, R., and Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends Cog. Sci. 3: 452–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thornhill, R., and Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol. Rev.72: 497–548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Tomkins, J. L., and Simmons, L. W. (1998). Female choice and manipulations of forceps size and symmetry in the earwig Forficula auricularia L. Anim. Behav. 56: 347–356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 18711971, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp. 136–179.Google Scholar
  60. van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1967). The facial displays of catarrhine monkeys and apes. In Morris, D. (ed.), Primate Ethology, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, pp. 7–68.Google Scholar
  61. Van Valen, L. A. (1962). A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 16: 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waitt, C. (2005). Facial Attractiveness Among Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta): Manipulating and Measuring Preferences for Conspecifics’ Facial Characteristics. PhD thesis, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
  63. Waitt, C., Little, A. C., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., Hancock, P., Lorincz, E., Fairhall, S. J., Pearce, P. C., Honess, P., Wolfensohn, S., and Perrett, D. I. Primate aesthetics: facial shape also influences preferences among nonhuman primates. In review.Google Scholar
  64. Waitt, C., Little, A. C., Wolfensohn, S., Honess, P., Brown, A. P., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., and Perrett, D. I. (2003). Evidence from rhesus macaques suggests male colouration plays a role in female primate mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270: 144–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson, F. A. W., and Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1994). Viewing preferences of rhesus monkeys related to memory for complex pictures, colours and faces. Behav. Brain Res. 60: 79–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scottish Primate Research Group, Department of PsychologyUniversity of StirlingStirlingUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations