Literature DB >> 12123296

Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces.

A C Little1, D M Burt, I S Penton-Voak, D I Perrett.   

Abstract

Exaggerated sexual dimorphism and symmetry in human faces have both been linked to potential 'good-gene' benefits and have also been found to influence the attractiveness of male faces. The current study explores how female self-rated attractiveness influences male face preference in females using faces manipulated with computer graphics. The study demonstrates that there is a relatively increased preference for masculinity and an increased preference for symmetry for women who regard themselves as attractive. This finding may reflect a condition-dependent mating strategy analogous to behaviours found in other species. The absence of a preference for proposed markers of good genes may be adaptive in women of low mate value to avoid the costs of decreased parental investment from the owners of such characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 12123296      PMCID: PMC1087598          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1327

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  11 in total

1.  Menstrual cycle alters face preference.

Authors:  I S Penton-Voak; D I Perrett; D L Castles; T Kobayashi; D M Burt; L K Murray; R Minamisawa
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-06-24       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Parasitized female guppies do not prefer showy males.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.844

3.  Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison.

Authors:  L Mealey; R Bridgstock; G C Townsend
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1999-01

4.  The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism.

Authors:  S W Gangestad; J A Simpson
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 12.579

5.  Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes.

Authors:  J E Scheib; S W Gangestad; R Thornhill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1999-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness.

Authors:  M R Cunningham; A P Barbee; C L Pike
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1990-07

7.  Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions.

Authors:  B Pawłowski; R I Dunbar
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1999-02-07       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.

Authors:  D I Perrett; K J Lee; I Penton-Voak; D Rowland; S Yoshikawa; D M Burt; S P Henzi; D L Castles; S Akamatsu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-08-27       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating.

Authors:  D M Buss; D P Schmitt
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness.

Authors:  K Grammer; R Thornhill
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.231

View more
  55 in total

1.  Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces.

Authors:  Anthony C Little; Benedict C Jones
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Are high-quality mates always attractive?: State-dependent mate preferences in birds and humans.

Authors:  Katharina Riebel; Marie-Jeanne Holveck; Simon Verhulst; Tim W Fawcett
Journal:  Commun Integr Biol       Date:  2010-05

3.  Reproductive strategy, sexual development and attraction to facial characteristics.

Authors:  R Elisabeth Cornwell; Miriam J Law Smith; Lynda G Boothroyd; Fhionna R Moore; Hasker P Davis; Michael Stirrat; Bernard Tiddeman; David I Perrett
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-12-29       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces.

Authors:  B C Jones; D I Perrett; A C Little; L Boothroyd; R E Cornwell; D R Feinberg; B P Tiddeman; S Whiten; R M Pitman; S G Hillier; D M Burt; M R Stirrat; M J Law Smith; F R Moore
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-02-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Sex-contingent face after-effects suggest distinct neural populations code male and female faces.

Authors:  Anthony C Little; Lisa M DeBruine; Benedict C Jones
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity.

Authors:  Lisa M DeBruine; Benedict C Jones; Anthony C Little; Lynda G Boothroyd; David I Perrett; Ian S Penton-Voak; Philip A Cooper; Lars Penke; David R Feinberg; Bernard P Tiddeman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-06-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Facial and bodily correlates of family background.

Authors:  Lynda G Boothroyd; David I Perrett
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Social transmission of face preferences among humans.

Authors:  Benedict C Jones; Lisa M DeBruine; Anthony C Little; Robert P Burriss; David R Feinberg
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate.

Authors:  Marie-Jeanne Holveck; Katharina Riebel
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 10.  Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research.

Authors:  Anthony C Little; Benedict C Jones; Lisa M DeBruine
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.