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.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., &Tooby, J. (1992).The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beale, J. M., &Keil, F. C. (1995). Categorical effects in the perception of faces.Cognition,57, 217–239.
Benson, P., &Perrett, D. (1992, February 22). Face to face with the perfect image.New Scientist, No. 1809, 32–35.
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.
Brooks, M., &Pomiankowski, A. (1994). Symmetry is in the eye of the beholder.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,9, 201–202.
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.
Buss, D. M., &Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.Psychological Review,100, 204–232.
Concar, D. (1995). Sex and the symmetrical body.New Scientist,146, 40–44.
Corballis, M. C. (1991).The lop-sided ape. New York: Oxford University Press.
Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1976).The psychology of left and right. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronin, H. (1991).The ant and the peacock: Altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Dennett, D. C. (1995).Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Enquist, M., &Arak, A. (1994). Symmetry, beauty and evolution.Nature,372, 169–172.
Fisher, R. A. (1915). The evolution of sexual preference.Eugenics Review,7, 184–192.
Fisher, R. A. (1930).The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gangestad, S. W., &Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences.Ethology & Sociobiology,14, 89–96.
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.
Johnstone, R. A. (1994). Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition.Nature,372, 172–175.
Jones, D., &Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations.Human Nature,4, 271–296.
Kowner, R. (1996). Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 662–675.
Langlois, J. H., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.
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.
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.
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.
Møller, A. P., &Pomiankowski, A. (1993). Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection.Genetica,89, 267–279.
Møller, A. P., &Thornhill, R. (1997). A meta-analysis of the heritability of developmental stability.Journal of Evolutionary Biology,10, 1–16.
Palmer, A. R., &Strobeck, C. A. (1986). Fluctuating asymmetry: Measurement, analysis, pattern.Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics,17, 391–421.
Parsons, P. A. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry: An epigenetic measure of stress.Biological Review,65, 131–145.
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.
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.
Pinker, S. (1994).The language instinct: The new science of language and mind. London: Penguin.
Pinker, S. (1997).How the mind works. New York: Norton.
Previc, F. H. (1991). A general theory concerning the prenatal origins of cerebral lateralization in humans.Psychological Review,98, 299–334.
Rhodes, G. (1996).Superportraits: Caricatures and recognition. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Rhodes, G.,Sumich, A., &Byatt, G. (in press). Are average facial configurations only attractive because of their symmetry?Psychological Science.
Rhodes, G., &Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness.Psychological Science,7, 105–110.
Ridley, M. (1992). Swallows and scorpionflies find symmetry is beautiful.Science,257, 327–328.
Samuels, C. A., Butterworth, G., Roberts, T., Graupner, L., &Hole, G. (1994). Facial aesthetics: Babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry.Perception,23, 823–831.
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.
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.
Symons, D. (1979).The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty.Human Nature,4, 237–269.
Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior.Psychological Science,5, 297–302.
Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1996). The evolution of human sexuality.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,11, 98–102.
Thornhill, R., &Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine.Biological Reviews,72, 497–548.
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.
Watson, P. M., &Thornhill, R. (1994). Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,9, 21–25.
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.
This research was supported by grants from the Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, the Australian Research Council, and the University of Western Australia. We thank Graham Byatt, Ian McLean, Johanna Roberts, and Leslie Zebrowitz for stimulating discussions about this work, and Rotem Kowner, Nicola Bruno, Randy Larsen, Leslie Zebrowitz, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank Graham Byatt for assistance with stimulus construction, Linda Jeffery for assistance with the figures, and Alison Clark and Catherine Hickford for assistance with data collection and statistical analysis in Experiment 1A.
About this article
Cite this article
Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J.M. et al. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5, 659–669 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208842
- Pair Type
- Directional Asymmetry
- Facial Attractiveness
- Attractiveness Rating
- Symmetric Version