Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Anthropological Review

The Journal of Polish Anthropological Society

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.71

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.301
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.695

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2083-4594
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Facial attractiveness: General patterns of facial preferences

Krzysztof Kościński
Published Online: 2008-01-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10044-008-0001-9

Facial attractiveness: General patterns of facial preferences

This review covers universal patterns in facial preferences. Facial attractiveness has fascinated thinkers since antiquity, but has been the subject of intense scientific study for only the last quarter of a century. Many facial features contribute to facial attractiveness: Averageness and symmetry are preferred by males and females, probably because they signal genetic quality and developmental stability. Men prefer highly feminized female faces because they reflect high estrogen levels and low testosterone levels. This indicates that the woman is reproductively healthy. Women, on the other hand, prefer a moderate level of male facial masculinity, since facial masculinity that is too pronounced signals high level of testosterone and, thereby, a poorly developed pro-family personality. In women, facial hair is detrimental to facial attractiveness. In men, the effect is not consistent. Faces with a clear complexion are attractive to both men and women. Men prefer light and smooth skin in women. Positive facial expressions also enhance facial attractiveness. Many factors, in particular skin condition and facial proportions, affect perceived age, which is an important component of facial attractiveness. Men in particular strongly prefer youthful-looking female faces. Facial preferences enable an individual to recognize reproductively fit mates. Therefore, facial preferences are adaptive, although non-adaptive mechanisms related to general brain function also play a role.

Praca omawia ogólnoludzkie wzorce postrzegania atrakcyjności twarzy. Atrakcyjność twa- rzy jest tematem rozważań od tysięcy lat, jednak dopiero kilkadziesiąt lat temu stała się przedmiotem badań naukowych. Już w starożytnej Grecji istniały koncepcje łączące piękno ludzkiej twarzy z tzw. złotą proporcją jej odcinków (tzn. stosunek ich długości miał być równy 1,618) lub równą długością określonych jej wymiarów. Poglądy te pochodziły z roz- ważań geometrycznych, nic więc dziwnego, że nie znalazły uzasadnienia we współczesnych badaniach nad postrzeganiem atrakcyjności twarzy.

Dzisiejsze, ewolucyjne podejście do zagadnienia atrakcyjności twarzy zakłada, że dostrze- ganie piękna lub brzydoty twarzy jest adaptacją osoby postrzegającej. Adaptacja ta polega na

pozytywnym odbiorze tych twarzy, których wygląd sugeruje (sygnalizuje) obecność pożąda- nych cech u ich właścicieli, np. zdrowia lub "dobrych genów". Istnieją także alternatywne, nieadaptacyjne próby wyjaśnienia fenomenu atrakcyjności fizycznej, odwołujące się do ogólnych mechanizmów funkcjonowania mózgu. Badania empiryczne pokazują, że ludzkie preferencje w stosunku do pewnych twarzy są wynikiem działania zarówno mechanizmów adaptacyjnych jak i nieadaptacyjnych.

Wyróżniono wiele czynników, które wpływają na atrakcyjność twarzy. Jednym z ważniej- szych jest wiek, wyraźnie związany z cechami uznawanymi za atrakcyjne. Okazało się na przykład, że mężczyźni wykazują tak silną preferencję dla oznak młodości na twarzy kobiet, że za najatrakcyjniejsze uważają proporcje twarzy typowe dla 11-14-letnich dziewcząt. Oprócz dziecięcych proporcji większości cech, atrakcyjna kobieta powinna jednak posiadać też cechy świadczące o jej dojrzałości. Takie preferencje u mężczyzn zapewne zostały ukształtowane ewolucyjnie, w związku z wysokim potencjałem reprodukcyjnym oraz wyso- ką zdolnością rozrodczą młodych kobiet. Z kolei kobiety nie wykazują wyraźnych preferen- cji dla oznak wieku na twarzach mężczyzn, choć nisko oceniają obie skrajności: twarze bardzo młode oraz twarze starców. Istnieją doniesienia, że u dzieci (a przynajmniej u nie- mowląt) młody wygląd podnosi atrakcyjność twarzy.

Już w XIX w. zauważono, że twarze o przeciętnych proporcjach cechują się ponadprze- ciętną atrakcyjnością. Nowoczesne techniki komputerowej obróbki obrazu twarzy (tzw. warping i morfing) pokazały, że korzystny wpływ przeciętności proporcji na atrakcyjność twarzy ma miejsce zarówno dla widoku z przodu jak i z profilu, dla twarzy obu płci oraz według sędziów obu płci. Do dziś nie rozstrzygnięto czy preferencja dla przeciętnych twarzy jest adaptacją pozwalającą wybrać dobrego partnera (przeciętność proporcji miałaby tu być oznaką zdrowia somatycznego i genetycznego) czy też skutkiem sposobu funkcjonowania mózgu (atrakcyjność form przeciętnych znaleziono dla wielu innych typów bodźców, np. psów, samochodów itd.).

Różnice pomiędzy twarzą mężczyzny a twarzą kobiety w dużym stopniu pokrywają się z różnicami pomiędzy twarzą osoby dorosłej a twarzą dziecka. Nic więc dziwnego, że męż- czyźni za atrakcyjniejsze uznają silnie sfeminizowane twarze kobiet. Twarze takie wydają się młodsze, co sugeruje wysoki potencjał reprodukcyjny, a ponadto sygnalizują też wysoki poziom estrogenu, a zatem zdrowie reprodukcyjne. Kobiety preferują twarze mężczyzn o umiarkowanym stopniu maskulinizacji. Powiązania atrakcyjności twarzy mężczyzny z jej stopniem maskulinizacji są bardziej złożone: maskulinizacja oznacza wysoki poziom testo- steronu, a to, z jednej strony sygnalizuje posiadanie przez mężczyznę "dobrych genów", a z drugiej może oznaczać zmniejszoną wierność mężczyzny i jego chęć inwestowania w potomstwo.

W kilku pracach z lat 1990. wykazano ujemny związek między symetrią twarzy a jej atrakcyjnością, jednak wkrótce okazało się, że były to artefakty wynikające z zastosowania wadliwych metod cyfrowej obróbki twarzy. Nowsze badania, przeprowadzone z użyciem techniki warpingu, wykazały, że wzrost symetrii twarzy zwiększa jej atrakcyjność. Istnieje hipoteza, że symetryczna twarz, podobnie jak wszelkie inne symetryczne obiekty, jest uwa- żana za atrakcyjną dlatego, że neuronowa obróbka obiektów symetrycznych jest szybka i mniej zawodna niż obiektów niesymetrycznych. Bardziej prawdopodobne wydaje się jednak wyjaśnienie adaptacyjne: asymetria twarzy jest oznaką niezdolności organizmu do precyzyjnego wytwarzania struktur fenotypowych na podstawie genotypu. Wybór twarzy symetrycznej oznacza więc wybór osobnika o wysokiej stabilności rozwojowej, a zatem o dobrych genach

Generalnie, mężczyźni preferują jasny odcień skóry u kobiet, co wydaje się być formą pre- ferencji w stosunku do młodego wieku (ponieważ dzieci mają jaśniejszą skórę niż dorośli) oraz wysokiego poziomu estrogenu (estrogen rozjaśnia skórę). Preferencje mężczyzn ze względu na kolor włosów i oczu są urozmaicone, co próbuje się tłumaczyć działaniem dobo- ru zależnego od częstości. Mężczyźni są wrażliwi na jakość włosów, która jest wskaźnikiem ogólnego zdrowia kobiety. Owłosienie twarzy (zarost) jest cechą typowo męską, dlatego jego obecność u kobiety obniża jej atrakcyjność. Broda u mężczyzn jest odbierana przez kobiety równie dwuznacznie jak silnie zmaskulinizowana twarz, dlatego kobiety, na ogół, pozytyw- nie oceniają obecność cienia po zgolonej brodzie (oznaka męskości), ale już nie obecność brody.

Czysta (tzn. wolna od brodawek itp.) i zdrowo wyglądająca skóra pozytywnie wpływa na atrakcyjność twarzy obu płci. Ponadto u kobiet atrakcyjność twarzy jest obniżana przez oznaki zaawansowania wieku (zmarszczki) lub względnie wysokiego poziomu androgenów (np. trądzik młodzieńczy). Wyraz twarzy sugerujący pozytywne nastawienie podnosi atrak- cyjność tej twarzy. Znaczenie ma tu uśmiech, rozszerzone źrenice, wzrok skierowany na patrzącego, a także "odczytywana" z twarzy uprzejmość i lubienie dzieci.

Podsumowując, wyniki badań dowodzą, że istnieją pewne ogólne wzorce preferencji w stosunku do twarzy, które w dużej mierze są kryteriami rozpoznawania wartościowych, z reprodukcyjnego punktu widzenia, partnerów. Preferencje w stosunku do twarzy mają zatem charakter adaptacji, choć w niektórych przypadkach istotną rolę mogą odgrywać nie-adaptacyjne mechanizmy związane z ogólnymi zasadami funkcjonowania mózgu.

  • Alley T.R., 1993, The developmental stability of facial attractiveness: New longitudinal data and a review, Merrill-Palmer Q., 39, 265-278.Google Scholar

  • Alley T.R., M.R. Cunningham, 1991, Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average, Psychol. Sci., 2, 123-125.Google Scholar

  • Baker B.W., M.G. Woods, 2001, The role of the divine proportion in the esthetic improvement of patients undergoing combined orthodontic/orthognathic surgical treatment, Int. J. Adult Orthod. Orthognath. Surg., 16, 108-120.Google Scholar

  • Barber N., 1995, The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology, Ethol. Sociobiol., 16, 395-424.Google Scholar

  • Baudouin J.Y., G. Tiberghien, 2004, Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women, Acta Psychol., 117, 313-332.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benson P., D. Perrett, 1992, Face to face with the perfect image, New Sci., 133, 32-35.Google Scholar

  • Benson P.J., D.I. Perrett, 1993, Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars, Perception, 22, 257-262.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry D.S., 1991a, Accuracy in social perception: Contributions of facial and vocal information, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 61, 298-307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry D.S., 1991b, Attractive faces are not all created equal: Joint effects of facial babyishness and attractiveness on social perception, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 17, 523-531.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry D.S., L.Z. McArthur, 1985, Some components and consequences of a babyface, J. Pers. Soc. Psych., 48, 312-323.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry D.S., L.Z. McArthur, 1986, Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception, Psychol. Bull., 100, 3-18.Google Scholar

  • Bisson M., A. Grobbelaar, 2004, The esthetic properties of lips: A comparison of models and nonmodels, Angle Orthod., 74, 162-166.Google Scholar

  • Boothroyd L.G., B.C. Jones, D.M. Burt, R.E. Cornwell, A.C. Little, B.P. Tiddeman, D.I. Perrett, 2005, Facial masculinity is related to perceived age but not perceived health, Evol. Hum. Behav., 26, 417-431.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Borkan G.A., A.H. Norris, 1980, Assessment of biological age using a profile of physical parameters, J. Gerontol., 35, 177-184.Google Scholar

  • Buss D., 1999, Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar

  • Cardenas R.A., L.J. Harris, 2006, Symmetrical decorations enhance the attractiveness of faces and abstract designs, Evol. Hum. Behav., 27, 1-18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carello C., A. Grosofsky, R.E. Shaw, J.B. Pittenger, L.S. Mark, 1989, Attractiveness of facial profiles is a function of distance from archetype, Ecol. Psychol., 1, 227-251.Google Scholar

  • Choe K.S., A.P. Sclafani, J.A. Litner, G.P. Yu, T. Romo, 2004, The Korean American woman's face. Anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics, Arch. Facial Plast. Surg., 6, 244-252.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Costa M., L. Corazza, 2006, Aesthetic phenomena as supernormal stimuli: The case of eye, lip, and lower-face size and roundness in artistic portraits, Perception, 35, 229-246.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cunningham M.R., 1986, Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 50, 925-935.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cunningham M.R., A.P. Barbee, C.L. Pike, 1990, What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 59, 61-72.Google Scholar

  • Cunningham M.R., A.R. Roberts, A.P. Barbee, P.B. Druen, C.H. Wu, 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, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 68, 261-279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Darwin C., 1871, The descent of man, and selections in relation to sex, John Murray, London.Google Scholar

  • DeBruine L.M., B.C. Jones, A.C. Little, L.G. Boothroyd, D.I. Perrett, I.S. Penton-Voak, P.A. Cooper, L. Penke, D. Feinberg, B.P. Tiddeman, 2006, Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 273, 1355-1360.Google Scholar

  • DeBruine L.M., B.C. Jones, L. Unger, A.C. Little, D.R. Feinberg, in press, Dissociating averageness and attractiveness: Attractive faces are not always average, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.Google Scholar

  • Dion K.K., E. Berscheid, E. Walster, 1972, What is beautiful is good, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 24, 285-290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Edler R., P. Agarwal, D. Wertheim, D. Greenhill, 2006, The use of anthropometric proportion indices in the measurement of facial attractiveness, Eur. J. Orthod., 28, 274-281.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt I., 1970, Ethology: The biology of behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar

  • Eisenthal Y., G. Dror, E. Ruppin, 2006, Facial attractiveness: Beauty and the machine, Neural Comput., 18, 119-142.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Enquist M., A. Arak, 1993, Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses, Nature, 361, 446-448.Google Scholar

  • Enquist M., A. Arak, 1994, Symmetry, beauty and evolution, Nature,372, 169-172.Google Scholar

  • Etcoff N., 1999, Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty, Anchor Books, New York.Google Scholar

  • Farkas L.G., 1994, Anthropometry of the attractive North American Caucasian face, [in:] Anthropometry of the head and face, L.G. Farkas (ed.), Raven Press, New York, pp. 159-179.Google Scholar

  • Farkas L., I. Munro, J. Kolar, 1987a, Linear proportions in above- and below-average women's faces, [in:] Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine, L.G. Farkas, I.R. Munro (eds.), Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, pp. 119-130.Google Scholar

  • Farkas L., I. Munro, J. Kolar, 1987b, The validity of neoclassical facial proportion canons, [in:] Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine, L.G. Farkas, I.R. Munro (eds.), Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, pp. 57-66.Google Scholar

  • Feinman S., G.W. Gill, 1977, Female's responses to male beardedness, Percept. Mot. Skills, 58, 533-534.Google Scholar

  • Feinman S., G.W. Gill, 1978, Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences, J. Soc. Psychol., 105, 43-52.Google Scholar

  • Ferrario V.F., C. Sforza, C.E. Poggio, G. Tartaglia, 1995, Facial morphometry of television actresses compared with normal women, J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 53, 1008-1014.Google Scholar

  • Fink B., K. Grammer, P.J. Matts, 2006, Visible skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health in female faces, Evol. Hum. Behav., 27, 433-442.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fink B., K. Grammer, P. Mitteroecker, P. Gunz, K. Schaefer, F.L. Bookstein, J.T. Manning, 2005a, Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 272, 1995-2001.Google Scholar

  • Fink B., K. Grammer, R. Thornhill, 2001, Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color, J. Comp. Psychol., 115, 92-99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fink B., N. Neave, 2005, The biology of facial beauty, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 27, 317-325.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fink B., N. Neave, J.T. Manning, K. Grammer, 2005b, Facial symmetry and the ‘big-five’ personality factors, Pers. Indiv. Differ., 39, 523-529.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fink B., N. Neave, H. Seydel, 2007, Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women, Am. J. Hum. Biol., 19, 82-87.Google Scholar

  • Ford C.S., Beach F.A., 1951, Patterns of sexual behavior, Harper, New York.Google Scholar

  • Frąckiewicz W., 2001, The aesthetics the eyes and mouth position in a three-point face schema, Prz. Antropol. - Anthropol. Rev., 64, 93-100.Google Scholar

  • Frost P., 1988, Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception, Perspect. Biol. Med., 32, 38-58.Google Scholar

  • Frost P., 2006, European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?, Evol. Hum. Behav., 27, 85-103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Galton F., 1878, Composite portraits, Nature, 18, 97-100.Google Scholar

  • Gangestad S.W., G.J. Scheyd, 2005, The evolution of human physical attractiveness, Ann. Rev. Anthropol., 34, 523-548.Google Scholar

  • Getty T., 2002, Signaling health versus parasites, Am. Nat., 159, 363-371.Google Scholar

  • Ghirlanda S., L. Jansson, M. Enquist, 2002, Chickens prefer beautiful humans, Hum. Nat., 13, 383-389.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giddon D.B., 1995, Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics, Semin. Orthod., 1, 82-93.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Giddon D.B., D.L. Bernier, C.A. Evans, J.A. Kinchen, 1996, Comparison of two computer animated imaging programs for quantifying facial profile preference, Percept. Mot. Skills, 82, 1251-1264.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Grammer K., B. Fink, A. Juette, G. Ronzal, R. Thornhill, 2002, Female faces and bodies: N-dimensional feature space and attractiveness, [in:] Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives, G. Rhodes, L.A. Zebrowitz (eds.), Ablex Publishing, Westport, pp. 91-125.Google Scholar

  • Grammer K., B. Fink, A.P. Môller, R. Thornhill, 2003, Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty, Biol. Rev., 78, 385-407.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Guthrie R.D., 1976, Body hot spots: The anatomy of human social organs and behavior, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar

  • Halberstadt J., 2006, The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev., 10, 166-183.Google Scholar

  • Halberstadt J., G. Rhodes, 2000, The attractiveness of nonface averages, Psychol. Sci., 11, 285-289.Google Scholar

  • Halberstadt J., G. Rhodes, 2003, It's not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive, Psychon. Bull. Rev., 10, 149-156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hatfield E., S. Sprecher, 1986, Mirror, mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar

  • Hellström Å., J. Tekle, 1994, Person perception through facial photographs: Effects of glasses, hair, and beard, on judgments of occupation and personal qualities, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 24, 693-705.Google Scholar

  • Hershon L.E., D.B. Giddon, 1980, Determinants of facial profile self-perception, Am. J. Orthod., 78, 279-295.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Hildebrandt K.A., H.E. Fitzgerald, 1979, Facial feature determinants of perceived infant attractiveness, Infant Behav. Dev., 2, 329-339.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hinsz V.B., D.C. Matz, R.A. Patience, 2001, Does women's hair signal reproductive potential, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 37, 166-172.Google Scholar

  • Honn M., K. Dietz, A. Godt, G. Goz, 2005, Perceived relative attractiveness of facial profiles with varying degrees of skeletal anomalies, J. Orofac. Orthop., 66, 187-196.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hückstedt B., 1965, Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum "Kindchenschema", Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 12, 421-450.Google Scholar

  • Hume D.K., R. Montgomerie, 2001, Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of "quality" in women and men, Evol. Hum. Behav., 22, 93-112.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Iliffe A.H., 1960, A study of preferences in feminine beauty, Br. J. Psychol., 51, 267-273.Google Scholar

  • Jansson L., B. Forkman, M. Enquist, 2002, Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry, Anim. Behav., 63, 617-621.Google Scholar

  • Jefferson Y., 1996, Skeletal types: Key to unraveling the mystery of facial beauty and its biologic significance, J. Gen. Orthod., 7, 7-25.Google Scholar

  • Jefferson Y., 2004, Facial beauty - Establishing a universal standard, Int. J. Orthod., 15, 9-22.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Jennions M.D., M. Petrie, 1997, Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences, Biol. Rev., 72, 283-327.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnston V.S., M. Franklin, 1993, Is beauty in the eye of the beholder, Ethol. Sociobiol., 14, 183-199.Google Scholar

  • Johnston V.S., R. Hagel, M. Franklin, B. Fink, K. Grammer, 2001, Male facial attractiveness - evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design, Evol. Hum. Behav., 22, 251-267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnston V.S., C.J. Solomon, S.J. Gibson, A. Pallares-Bejarano, 2003, Human facial beauty: Current theories and methodologies, Arch. Facial Plast. Surg., 5, 371-377.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnstone R.A., 1994, Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition, Nature,372, 172-175.Google Scholar

  • Jones B.C., L.M. DeBruine, A.C. Little, C.A. Conway, D.R. Feinberg, 2006, Integrating gaze direction and expression in preferences for attractive faces, Psychol. Sci., 17, 588-591.Google Scholar

  • Jones B.C., A.C. Little, D.M. Burt, D.I. Perrett, 2004a, When facial attractiveness is only skin deep, Perception, 33, 569-576.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Jones B.C., A.C. Little, D.R. Feinberg, I.S. Penton-Voak, B.P. Tiddeman, D.I. Perrett, 2004b, The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness, Evol. Hum. Behav., 25, 24-30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jones B.C., A.C. Little, I.S. Penton-Voak, B.P. Tiddeman, D.M. Burt, D.I. Perrett, 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

  • Jones D., 1995, Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications, Curr. Anthropol., 36, 723-748.Google Scholar

  • Jones D., 1996a, An evolutionary perspective on physical attractiveness, Evol. Anthropol., 5, 97-109.Google Scholar

  • Jones D., 1996b, Physical attractiveness and the theory of sexual selection, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

  • Keating C.F., 1985, Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness, Soc. Psychol. Q., 48, 61-70.Google Scholar

  • Keating C.F., D.L. Bai, 1986, Children's attributions of social dominance from facial cues, Child Dev., 57, 1269-1276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keating C.F., J. Doyle, 2002, The faces of desirable mates and dates contain mixed social status cues, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 38, 414-424.Google Scholar

  • Kniffin K.M., D.S. Wilson, 2004, The effect of nonphysical traits on the perception of physical attractiveness, Evol. Hum. Behav., 25, 88-101.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Koehler N., L.W. Simmons, G. Rhodes, M. Peters, 2004, The relationship between sexual dimorphism in human faces and fluctuating asymmetry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., (Suppl.)271, S233-S236.Google Scholar

  • Korthase K.M., I. Trenholme, 1982, Perceived age and perceived physical attractiveness, Percept. Mot. Skills, 54, 1251-1258.Google Scholar

  • Kowner R., 1996, Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 22, 662-675.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kowner R., 1997, The perception and attribution of facial asymmetry in normal adults, Psychol. Rec., 47, 371-384.Google Scholar

  • Kowner R., 1998, Effects of social deviance labels on judgements of facial attractiveness: A comparison of labelling procedures using Japanese raters, Int. J. Psychol., 33, 1-16.Google Scholar

  • Kujawa B., J. Strzałko, 1998, Standard of physical attractiveness, Prz. Antropol. - Anthropol. Rev., 61, 31-48.Google Scholar

  • Laeng B., R. Mathisen, J.A. Johnsen, 2007, Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the same eye color?, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 61, 371-384.Google Scholar

  • Langlois J.H., L.A. Roggman, 1990, Attractive faces are only average, Psychol. Sci., 1, 115-121.Google Scholar

  • Langlois J.H., L.A. Roggman, L. Musselman, 1994, What is average and what is not average about attractive faces, Psychol. Sci., 5, 214-220.Google Scholar

  • Law Smith M.J., D.I. Perrett, B.C. Jones, R.E. Cornwell, F.R. Moore, D.R. Feinberg, L.G. Boothroyd, S.J. Durrani, M.R. Stirrat, S. Whiten, R.M. Pitman, S.G. Hillier, 2006, Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 273, 135-140.Google Scholar

  • Light L.L., S. Hollander, F. Kayra-Stuart, 1981, Why attractive people are harder to remember, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 7, 269-276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Little A.C., D.M. Burt, I.S. Penton-Voak, D.I. Perrett, 2001, Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 268, 39-44.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Little A.C., P.J.B. Hancock, 2002, The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male facial attractiveness, Br. J. Psychol., 93, 451-464.Google Scholar

  • Little A.C., B.C. Jones, 2003, Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 270, 1759-1763.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Little A.C., B.C. Jones, 2006, Attraction independent of detection suggests special mechanisms for symmetry preferences in human face perception, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 273, 3093-3099.Google Scholar

  • Little A.C., I.S. Penton-Voak, D.M. Burt, D.I. Perrett, 2003, Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans: Partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour, Evol. Hum. Behav., 24, 43-51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Manning J.T., L.J. Pickup, 1998, Symmetry and performance in middle distance runners, Int. J. Sports Med., 19, 205-209.Google Scholar

  • Maple J.R., K.W.L. Vig, F.M. Beck, P.E. Larsen, S. Shanker, 2005, A comparison of providers' and consumers' perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 128, 690-696.Google Scholar

  • Marcus D.K., M.R. Cunningham, 2003, Do child molesters have aberrant perceptions of adult female facial attractiveness?, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol., 33, 499-512.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mark L., R.E. Shaw, J.B. Pittenger, 1988, Natural constraints, scales of analysis, and information for the perception of growing faces, [in:] Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces, T.R. Alley (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 11-49.Google Scholar

  • Mark L.S., J.B. Pittenger, H. Hines, C. Carello, R.E. Shaw, J.T. Todd, 1980, Wrinkling and head shape as coordinated sources of age-level information, Percept. Psychophys., 27, 117-124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marquardt S.R., 2002, Dr. Stephen R. on the Golden Decagon and human facial beauty. Interview by Dr. Gottlieb, J. Clin. Orthod., 36, 339-347.Google Scholar

  • Mason M.F., E.P. Tatkow, C.N. Macrae, 2005, The look of love: Gaze shifts and person perception, Psychol. Sci., 16, 236-239.Google Scholar

  • Mathes E.W., S.M. Brennan, P.M. Haugen, H.B. Rice, 1985, Ratings of physical attractiveness as a function of age, J. Soc. Psychol., 125, 157-168.Google Scholar

  • Matoula S., H. Pancherz, 2006, Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces, Angle Orthod., 76, 204-210.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • McArthur L.Z., K. Apatow, 1983/1984, Impressions of baby-faced adults, Soc. Cogn., 2, 315-342.Google Scholar

  • McArthur L.Z., D.S. Berry, 1987, Crosscultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults, J. Cross. Cult. Psychol., 18, 165-192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCabe V., 1984, Abstract perceptual information for age level: A risk factor for maltreatment?, Child Dev., 55, 267-276.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • McCall R.B., C.B. Kennedy, 1980, Attention of 4-month infants to discrepancy and babyishness, J. Exp. Child. Psych., 29, 189-201.Google Scholar

  • McGovern R.J., M.C. Neale, K.S. Kendler, 1996, The independence of physical attractiveness and symptoms of depression in a female twin population, J. Psychol., 130, 209-219.Google Scholar

  • Mealey L., R. Bridgestock, G.C. Townsend, 1999, Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: A monozygotic co-twin comparison, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 76, 151-158.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mehrabian A., J.S. Blum, 1997, Physical appearance, attractiveness, and the mediating role of emotions, Curr. Psychol., 16, 20-42.Google Scholar

  • Mesko N., T. Bereczkei, 2004, Hairstyle as an adaptive means of displaying phenotypic quality, Hum. Nat., 15, 251-270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Monin B., 2003, The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 85, 1035-1048.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moore T., K.A. Southard, J.S. Casko, F. Qian, T.E. Southard, 2005, Buccal corridors and smile esthetics, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 127, 208-213.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Morris D., 1967, The naked ape, Cape Ltd, London.Google Scholar

  • Mueller U., A. Mazur, 1997, Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality, Behav. Ecol., 8, 569-579.Google Scholar

  • Muscarella F., M.R. Cunningham, 1996, The evolutionary significance and social perception of male pattern baldness and facial hair, Ethol. Sociobiol., 17, 99-117.Google Scholar

  • Neave N., S. Laing, B. Fink, J.T. Manning, 2003, Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone and perceived male dominance, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 270, 2167-2172.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Nguyen D.D., P.K. Turley, 1998, Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 114, 208-217.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Noor F., D.C. Evans, 2003, The effect of facial symmetry on perceptions of personality and attractiveness, J. Res. Pers., 37, 339-347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ong E., R.A. Brown, S. Richmond, 2006, Peer assessment of dental attractiveness, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 130, 163-169.Google Scholar

  • O'Toole A.J., T. Price, T. Vetter, J.C. Bartlett, V. Blanz, 1999, 3D shape and 2D surface textures of human faces: The role of averages in attractiveness and age, Image. Vis. Comput., 18, 9-19.Google Scholar

  • Pancer S.M., J.R. Meindl, 1978, Length of hair and beardedness as determinants of personality impressions, Percept. Mot. Skills, 46, 1328-1330.Google Scholar

  • Parekh S.M., H.W. Fields, M. Beck, S. Rosenstiel, 2006, Attractiveness of variations in the smile arc and buccal corridor space as judged by orthodontists and laymen, Angle Orthod., 76, 557-563.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Pearson D.C., P.A. Adamson, 2004, The ideal nasal profile: Rhinoplasty patients vs the general public, Arch. Facial Plast. Surg., 6, 257-262.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Pellegrini R.J., 1973, Impressions of the male personality as a function of beardedness, Psychology, 10, 29-33.Google Scholar

  • Penton-Voak I.S., J.Y. Chen, 2004, High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans, Evol. Hum. Behav., 25, 229-241.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Penton-Voak I.S., B.C. Jones, A.C. Little, S. Baker, B. Tiddeman, D.M. Burt, D.I. Perrett, 2001, Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 268, 1617-1623.Google Scholar

  • Penton-Voak I.S., D.I. Perrett, 2001, Male facial attractiveness: Perceived personality and shifting female preferences for male traits across the menstrual cycle, Adv. Study Behav., 30, 219-259.Google Scholar

  • Penton-Voak I.S., D.I. Perrett, D.L. Castles, T. Kobayashi, D.M. Burt, L.K. Murray, R. Minamisawa, 1999, Menstrual cycle alters face preference, Nature,399, 741-742.Google Scholar

  • Perrett D.I., D.M. Burt, I.S. Penton-Voak, K.J. Lee, D.A. Rowland, R. Edwards, 1999, Symmetry and human facial attractiveness, Evol. Hum. Behav., 20, 295-307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Perrett D.I., K.J. Lee, I. Penton-Voak, D. Rowland, S. Yoshikawa, D.M. Burt, S.P. Henzi, D.L. Castles, S. Akamatsu, 1998, Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness, Nature, 394, 884-887.Google Scholar

  • Perrett D.I., K.A. May, S. Yoshikawa, 1994, Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness, Nature, 368, 239-242.Google Scholar

  • Pettijohn T.F., B.J. Jungeberg, 2004, Playboy playmate curves: Changes in facial and body feature preferences across social and economic conditions, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 30, 1186-1197.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pettijohn T.F., A. Tesser, 1999, Popularity in environmental context: Facial feature assessment of American movie actresses, Media Psychol., 1, 229-247.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Polk M.S., A.G. Farman, J.A. Yancey, L.R. Gholston, B.E. Johnson, 1995, Soft tissue profile: A survey of African-American preference, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 108, 90-101.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Pollard J., J. Shepherd, J. Shepherd, 1999, Average faces are average faces, Curr. Psychol., 18, 98-103.Google Scholar

  • Reed J.A., E.M. Blunk, 1990, The influence of facial hair on impression formation, Soc. Behav. Pers., 18, 169-176.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reis H.T., I.M. Wilson, C. Monestere, S. Bernstein, K. Clark, E. Seidl, M. Franco, E. Gioioso, L. Freeman, K. Radoane, 1990, What is smiling is beautiful and good, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 20, 259-267.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., 2006, The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 199-226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rhodes G., J. Chan, L.A. Zebrowitz, L.W. Simmons, 2003, Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health?, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., (Suppl.)270, S93-S95.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., J. Halberstadt, G. Brajkovich, 2001a, Generalization of mere exposure effects to averaged composite faces, Soc. Cogn., 19, 57-70.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., J. Halberstadt, L. Jeffery, R. Palermo, 2005a, The attractiveness of average faces is not a generalized mere exposure effect, Soc. Cogn., 23, 205-217.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., C. Hickford, L. Jeffery, 2000, Sex-typicality and attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive?, Br. J. Psychol., 91, 125-140.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., K. Lee, R. Palermo, M. Weiss, S. Yoshikawa, P. Clissa, T. Williams, M. Peters, C. Winkler, L. Jeffery, 2005b, Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces, Perception, 34, 319-340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rhodes G., F. Proffitt, J.M. Grady, A. Sumich, 1998, Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty, Psychon. Bull. Rev., 5, 659-669.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rhodes G., J. Roberts, L.W. Simmons, 1999a, Reflections on symmetry and attractiveness, Psychol. Evol. Gend., 1, 279-295.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., A. Sumich, G. Byatt, 1999b, Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry?, Psychol. Sci., 10, 52-58.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., T. Tremewan, 1996, Averageness, exaggeration and facial attractiveness, Psychol. Sci., 7, 105-110.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes G., S. Yoshikawa, A. Clark, K. Lee, R. McKay, S. Akamatsu, 2001b, Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty, Perception, 30, 611-625.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rhodes G., L.A. Zebrowitz, A. Clark, S.M. Kalick, A. Hightower, R. McKay, 2001c, Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health?, Evol. Hum. Behav., 22, 31-46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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

  • Rikowski A., K. Grammer, 1999, Human body odour, symmetry and attractiveness, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 266, 869-874.Google Scholar

  • Roberts S.C., A.C. Little, L.M. Gosling, B.C. Jones, D.I. Perrett, V. Carter, M. Petrie, 2005a, MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans, Biol. Lett., 1, 400-403.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts S.C., A.C. Little, L.M. Gosling, D.I. Perrett, V. Carter, B.C. Jones, I. Pentonvoak, M. Petrie, 2005b, MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness, Evol. Hum. Behav., 26, 213-226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roney J.R., K.N. Hanson, K.M. Durante, D. Maestripieri, 2006, Reading men's faces: Women's mate attractiveness judgments track men's testosterone and interest in infants, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 273, 2169-2175.Google Scholar

  • Rowland D.A., D.I. Perrett, 1995, Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color, IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 15, 70-76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rubenstein A.J., 2005, Variation in perceived attractiveness: Differences between dynamic and static faces, Psychol. Sci., 16, 759-762.Google Scholar

  • Rubenstein A.J., L. Kalakanis, J.H. Langlois, 1999, Infant preferences for attractive faces: A cognitive explanation, Dev. Psychol., 35, 848-855.Google Scholar

  • Russell R., 2003, Sex, beauty, and the relative luminance of facial features, Perception, 32, 1093-1107.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scarbrough P.S., V.S. Johnston, 2005, Individual differences in women's facial preferences as a function of digit ratio and mental rotation ability, Evol. Hum. Behav., 26, 509-526.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scheib J.E., S.W. Gangestad, R. Thornhill, 1999, Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues of good genes, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 266, 1913-1917.Google Scholar

  • Scott C.R., M.S. Goonewardene, K. Murray, 2006, Influence of lips on the perception of malocclusion, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 130, 152-162.Google Scholar

  • Sergl H.G., A. Zentner, G. Krause, 1998, An experimental study of the esthetic effect of facial profiles, J. Orofac. Orthop., 59, 116-126.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shackelford T.K., R.J. Larsen, 1997, Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 72, 456-466.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simmons L.W., G. Rhodes, M. Peters, N. Koehler, 2004, Are human preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability?, Behav. Ecol., 15, 864-871.Google Scholar

  • Spyropoulos M.N., D.J. Halazonetis, 2001, Significance of the soft tissue profile on facial esthetics, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 119, 464-471.Google Scholar

  • Strzałko J., K. Kaszycka, 1988, Atrakcyjność fizyczna - obiektywne i subiektywne składowe oceny, Prz. Antropol., 54, 7-17.Google Scholar

  • Strzałko J., K.A. Kaszycka, 1992, Physical attractiveness: Interpersonal and intrapersonal variability of assessments, Soc. Biol., 39, 170-176.Google Scholar

  • Susanne C., 1977, Heritability of anthropological characters, Hum. Biol., 49, 573-580.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Swaddle J.P., J.P.K. Che, R.E. Clelland, 2004, Symmetry preference as a cognitive by-product in starlings, Behaviour, 141, 469-478.Google Scholar

  • Swaddle J.P., I.C. Cuthill, 1995, Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: Symmetry may not always be beautiful, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 261, 111-116.Google Scholar

  • Swaddle J.P., G.W. Reierson, 2002, Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 269, 2285-2289.Google Scholar

  • Symons D., 1979, The evolution of human sexuality, University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Tatarunaite E., R. Playle, K. Hood, W. Shaw, S. Richmond, 2005, Facial attractiveness: A longitudinal study, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 127, 676-682.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Thornhill R., S.W. Gangestad, 2006, Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women, Evol. Hum. Behav., 27, 131-144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thornhill R., S.W. Gangestad, R. Miller, G. Scheyd, J.K. McCullough, M. Franklin, 2003, Major histocompatibility genes, symmetry and body scent attractiveness in men and women, Behav. Ecol., 14, 668-678.Google Scholar

  • Thornhill R., A.P. Môller, 1997, Developmental stability, disease and medicine, Biol. Rev., 72, 497-548.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tiddeman B., M. Burt, D. Perrett, 2001, Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research, IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 21, 42-50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Türkkahraman H., H. Gökalp, 2004, Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population, Angle Orthod., 74, 640-647.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Udry J.R., 1965, Structural correlates of feminine beauty preferences in Britain and the United States: A comparison, Sociol. Soc. Res., 49, 330-342.Google Scholar

  • Valentine T., S. Darling, M. Donnelly, 2004, Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces, Psychon. Bull. Rev., 11, 482-487.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Valenzano D.R., A. Mennucci, G. Tartarelli, A. Cellerino, 2006, Shape analysis of female facial attractiveness, Vis. Res., 46, 1282-1291.Google Scholar

  • Van den Berghe P.L., P. Frost, 1986, Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism, and sexual selection: A case of gene-culture co-evolution?, Ethnic Racial Stud., 9, 87-113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Von Fauss R., 1988, Zur Bedeutung des Gesichtes für die Partnerwahl, Homo, 37, 188-201.Google Scholar

  • Wagatsuma E., C.L. Kleinke, 1979, Ratings of facial beauty by Asian-American and Caucasian females, J. Soc. Psychol., 109, 299-300.Google Scholar

  • Wallace A.R., 1889, Darwinism, (2nd edition), Macmillan, London.Google Scholar

  • Walster E., V. Aronson, D. Abrahams, L. Rottman, 1966, The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 4, 508-516.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Waynforth D., S. Delwadia, M. Camm, 2005, The influence of women's mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture, Evol. Hum. Behav., 26, 409-416.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Winkielman P., J. Halberstadt, T. Fazendeiro, S. Catty, 2006, Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind, Psychol. Sci., 17, 799-806.Google Scholar

  • Wogalter M.S., J.A. Hosie, 1991, Effects of cranial and facial hair on perceptions of age and person, J. Soc. Psychol., 131, 589-591.Google Scholar

  • Yehezkel S., P.K. Turley, 2004, Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20th century, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 125, 407-417.Google Scholar

  • Zajonc R.B., 2001, Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 10, 224-228.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zaidel D.W., A.C. Chen, C. German, 1995, She is not a beauty even when she smiles: Possible evolutionary basis for a relationship between facial attractiveness and hemispheric specialization, Neuropsychologia, 33, 649-655.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Zebrowitz L.A., J.M. Montepare, 1992, Impressions of babyfaced individuals across the life span, Dev. Psychol., 28, 1143-1152.Google Scholar

  • Zebrowitz L.A., K. Olson, K. Hoffman, 1993, Stability of babyfacedness and attractiveness across the life span, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 64, 453-466.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zebrowitz L.A., G. Rhodes, 2004, Sensitivity to "bad genes" and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health, J. Nonverbal Behav., 28, 167-185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Żądzińska E., 2003, Fluctuating asymmetry of some head structures and its possible causes, Prz. Antropol. - Anthropol. Rev., 66, 39-54.Google Scholar

About the article


Published Online: 2008-01-24

Published in Print: 2007-12-01


Citation Information: Anthropological Review, ISSN (Online) 2083-4594, ISSN (Print) 1898-6773, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10044-008-0001-9.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
Dariusz P. Danel, Agnieszka E. Siennicka, Pawel Fedurek, Tomasz Frackowiak, Piotr Sorokowski, Ewa A. Jankowska, and Boguslaw Pawlowski
American Journal of Men's Health, 2017, Volume 11, Number 4, Page 1247
[3]
Mohsen Naraghi and Mohammad Atari
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2015, Volume 152, Number 2, Page 244
[4]
Piotr Sorokowski, Krzysztof Kościński, and Agnieszka Sorokowska
Evolutionary Psychology, 2013, Volume 11, Number 4, Page 147470491301100
[5]
Jürgen Margraf, Andrea H. Meyer, and Kristen L. Lavallee
Clinical Psychological Science, 2015, Volume 3, Number 6, Page 877
[6]
Krzysztof Kościński
Perception, 2011, Volume 40, Number 6, Page 682
[7]
Carles Soler, Jukka Kekäläinen, Manuel Núñez, María Sancho, Javier Núñez, Iván Yaber, and Ricardo Gutiérrez
Perception, 2012, Volume 41, Number 10, Page 1234
[8]
Jürgen Margraf, Andrea H. Meyer, and Kristen L. Lavallee
Clinical Psychological Science, 2013, Volume 1, Number 3, Page 239
[9]
Krzysztof Kościński
Perception, 2013, Volume 42, Number 2, Page 163
[10]
José Antonio Muñoz-Reyes, Marta Iglesias-Julios, Miguel Pita, Enrique Turiegano, and Cheryl M McCormick
PLOS ONE, 2015, Volume 10, Number 7, Page e0132979
[11]
C. Soler, J. Kekäläinen, M. Núñez, M. Sancho, J. G. Álvarez, J. Núñez, I. Yaber, and R. Gutiérrez
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2014, Volume 27, Number 9, Page 1930
[12]
Jose A. Muñoz-Reyes, Miguel Pita, Maria Arjona, Santiago Sanchez-Pages, and Enrique Turiegano
Evolution and Human Behavior, 2014, Volume 35, Number 2, Page 118
[14]
K. Koscinski
Behavioral Ecology, 2012, Volume 23, Number 2, Page 334
[15]
Krzysztof Kościński
Evolution and Human Behavior, 2012, Volume 33, Number 2, Page 137
[16]
Krzysztof Kościński
Human Nature, 2011, Volume 22, Number 4, Page 416
[17]
Pierrick Blanchard and Sébastien Devillard
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2010, Volume 264, Number 4, Page 1296
[18]
Krzysztof Kościński
Anthropological Review, 2010, Volume 73, Number 1
[19]
Krzysztof Kościński
Anthropological Review, 2008, Volume 71, Number 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in