Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 659–669 | Cite as

Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty

  • Gillian RhodesEmail author
  • Fiona Proffitt
  • Jonathon M. Grady
  • Alex Sumich
Brief Reports


Evolutionary, as well as cultural, pressures may contribute to our perceptions of facial attractiveness. Biologists predict that facial symmetry should be attractive, because it may signal mate quality. We tested the prediction that facial symmetry is attractive by manipulating the symmetry of individual faces and observing the effect on attractiveness, and by examining whether natural variations in symmetry (between faces) correlated with perceived attractiveness. Attractiveness increased when we increased symmetry, and decreased when we reduced symmetry, in individual faces (Experiment 1), and natural variations in symmetry correlated significantly with attractiveness (Experiments 1 and 1A). Perfectly symmetric versions, made by blending the normal and mirror images of each face, were preferred to less symmetric versions of the same faces (even when those versions were also blends) (Experiments 1 and 2). Similar results were found when subjects judged the faces on appeal as a potential life partner, suggesting that facial symmetry may affect human mate choice. We conclude that facial symmetry is attractive and discuss the possibility that this preference for symmetry may be biologically based.


Pair Type Directional Asymmetry Facial Attractiveness Attractiveness Rating Symmetric Version 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., &Tooby, J. (1992).The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beale, J. M., &Keil, F. C. (1995). Categorical effects in the perception of faces.Cognition,57, 217–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson, P., &Perrett, D. (1992, February 22). Face to face with the perfect image.New Scientist, No. 1809, 32–35.Google Scholar
  4. Borod, J. C. (1993). Cerebral mechanisms underlying facial, prosodic, and lexical emotional expression: A review of neuropsychological studies and methodological issues.Neuropsychology,7, 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, M., &Pomiankowski, A. (1994). Symmetry is in the eye of the beholder.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,9, 201–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M. (1987). Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.),Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues and applications (pp. 335–351). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M., &Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.Psychological Review,100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Concar, D. (1995). Sex and the symmetrical body.New Scientist,146, 40–44.Google Scholar
  9. Corballis, M. C. (1991).The lop-sided ape. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1976).The psychology of left and right. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Cronin, H. (1991).The ant and the peacock: Altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Wu, C.-H., Barbee, A. P., &Druen, P. B. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,68, 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dennett, D. C. (1995).Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Shuster.Google Scholar
  14. Enquist, M., &Arak, A. (1994). Symmetry, beauty and evolution.Nature,372, 169–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, R. A. (1915). The evolution of sexual preference.Eugenics Review,7, 184–192.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, R. A. (1930).The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gangestad, S. W., &Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences.Ethology & Sociobiology,14, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grammer, K., &Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness.Journal of Comparative Psychology,108, 233–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnstone, R. A. (1994). Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition.Nature,372, 172–175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, D., &Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations.Human Nature,4, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kowner, R. (1996). Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 662–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langlois, J. H., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Rieser-Danner, L. A., &Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype?Developmental Psychology,23, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., &Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?Psychological Science,5, 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mealey, L., &Townsend, G. C. (1998). The role of fluctuating asymmetry on judgments of physical attractiveness: A monozygotic cotwin comparison. In J. Kieser & L. Mealey (Eds.).Dento-facial variation in perspective. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Møller, A. P., &Pomiankowski, A. (1993). Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection.Genetica,89, 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Møller, A. P., &Thornhill, R. (1997). A meta-analysis of the heritability of developmental stability.Journal of Evolutionary Biology,10, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmer, A. R., &Strobeck, C. A. (1986). Fluctuating asymmetry: Measurement, analysis, pattern.Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics,17, 391–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parsons, P. A. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry: An epigenetic measure of stress.Biological Review,65, 131–145.Google Scholar
  30. Perrett, D. I.,Burt, D. M.,Lee, K. J.,Rowland, D. A., &Edwards, R. E. (1998).Fluctuating asymmetry in human faces: Symmetry is beautiful. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  31. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinker, S. (1994).The language instinct: The new science of language and mind. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  33. Pinker, S. (1997).How the mind works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  34. Previc, F. H. (1991). A general theory concerning the prenatal origins of cerebral lateralization in humans.Psychological Review,98, 299–334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rhodes, G. (1996).Superportraits: Caricatures and recognition. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rhodes, G.,Sumich, A., &Byatt, G. (in press). Are average facial configurations only attractive because of their symmetry?Psychological Science.Google Scholar
  37. Rhodes, G., &Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness.Psychological Science,7, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ridley, M. (1992). Swallows and scorpionflies find symmetry is beautiful.Science,257, 327–328.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Samuels, C. A., Butterworth, G., Roberts, T., Graupner, L., &Hole, G. (1994). Facial aesthetics: Babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry.Perception,23, 823–831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Shackelford, T. K., &Larsen, R. J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,72, 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swaddle, J. P., &Cuthill, I. C. (1995). Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: Symmetry may not always be beautiful.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,261, 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Symons, D. (1979).The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty.Human Nature,4, 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior.Psychological Science,5, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1996). The evolution of human sexuality.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,11, 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thornhill, R., &Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine.Biological Reviews,72, 497–548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  48. Watson, P. M., &Thornhill, R. (1994). Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,9, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zebrowitz, L. A., Voinescu, L., &Collins, M. A. (1996). Wide eyed and crooked-faced—Determinants of perceived and real honesty across the lifespan.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,22, 1258–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gillian Rhodes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fiona Proffitt
    • 2
  • Jonathon M. Grady
    • 2
  • Alex Sumich
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Western AustraliaNedlands, PerthAustralia
  2. 2.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations