Literature DB >> 33727579

How and why patterns of sexual dimorphism in human faces vary across the world.

Karel Kleisner1, Petr Tureček2,3, S Craig Roberts4, Jan Havlíček5, Jaroslava Varella Valentova6, Robert Mbe Akoko7, Juan David Leongómez8, Silviu Apostol9, Marco A C Varella6, S Adil Saribay10.   

Abstract

Sexual selection, including mate choice and intrasexual competition, is responsible for the evolution of some of the most elaborated and sexually dimorphic traits in animals. Although there is sexual dimorphism in the shape of human faces, it is not clear whether this is similarly due to mate choice, or whether mate choice affects only part of the facial shape difference between men and women. Here we explore these questions by investigating patterns of both facial shape and facial preference across a diverse set of human populations. We find evidence that human populations vary substantially and unexpectedly in both the magnitude and direction of facial sexually dimorphic traits. In particular, European and South American populations display larger levels of facial sexual dimorphism than African populations. Neither cross-cultural differences in facial shape variation, sex differences in body height, nor differing preferences for facial femininity and masculinity across countries, explain the observed patterns of facial dimorphism. Altogether, the association between sexual shape dimorphism and attractiveness is moderate for women and weak (or absent) for men. Analysis that distinguishes between allometric and non-allometric components reveals that non-allometric facial dimorphism is preferred in women's faces but not in faces of men. This might be due to different regimes of ongoing sexual selection acting on men, such as stronger intersexual selection for body height and more intense intrasexual physical competition, compared with women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33727579      PMCID: PMC7966798          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85402-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  67 in total

1.  Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex.

Authors:  Antonio Rosas; Markus Bastir
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.868

2.  Sexual dimorphism in America: geometric morphometric analysis of the craniofacial region.

Authors:  Erin H Kimmerle; Ann Ross; Dennis Slice
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.832

Review 3.  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

4.  A revolution morphometrics.

Authors:  F James Rohlf; L F Marcus
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 17.712

5.  Evolutionary perspectives on human height variation.

Authors:  Gert Stulp; Louise Barrett
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2014-12-20

6.  A cross-cultural study of sex-typicality and averageness: Correlation between frontal and lateral measures of human faces.

Authors:  Dariusz P Danel; Jaroslava Varella Valentova; Oscar R Sánchez; Juan David Leongómez; Marco A C Varella; Karel Kleisner
Journal:  Am J Hum Biol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.937

7.  Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures.

Authors:  Katerina Harvati; Timothy D Weaver
Journal:  Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol       Date:  2006-12

8.  Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women.

Authors:  M J Law Smith; 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
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-01-22       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape.

Authors:  A C Little; B C Jones; I S Penton-Voak; D M Burt; D I Perrett
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2002-06-07       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Skin and bones: the contribution of skin tone and facial structure to racial prototypicality ratings.

Authors:  Michael A Strom; Leslie A Zebrowitz; Shunan Zhang; P Matthew Bronstad; Hoon Koo Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  7 in total

1.  More than just a pretty face? The relationship between immune function and perceived facial attractiveness.

Authors:  Summer Mengelkoch; Jeff Gassen; Marjorie L Prokosch; Gary W Boehm; Sarah E Hill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Sex Differences in Adult Facial Three-Dimensional Morphology: Application to Gender-Affirming Facial Surgery.

Authors:  Jordan J Bannister; Hailey Juszczak; Jose David Aponte; David C Katz; P Daniel Knott; Seth M Weinberg; Benedikt Hallgrímsson; Nils D Forkert; Rahul Seth
Journal:  Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med       Date:  2022-03-29

Review 3.  Darwin Versus Wallace: Esthetic Evolution and Preferential Mate Choice.

Authors:  Adam C Davis; Steven Arnocky
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-05-25

4.  Facial and body sexual dimorphism are not interconnected in the Maasai.

Authors:  Marina L Butovskaya; Victoria V Rostovtseva; Anna A Mezentseva
Journal:  J Physiol Anthropol       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 2.867

5.  Facial threat affects trust more strongly than facial attractiveness in women than it does in men.

Authors:  Johanna Brustkern; Markus Heinrichs; Mirella Walker; Bastian Schiller
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Africans and Europeans differ in their facial perception of dominance and sex-typicality: a multidimensional Bayesian approach.

Authors:  Vojtěch Fiala; Petr Tureček; Robert Mbe Akoko; Šimon Pokorný; Karel Kleisner
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Facial width-to-height ratio predicts fighting success: A direct replication and extension of Zilioli et al. (2014).

Authors:  Neil R Caton; John Hannan; Barnaby J W Dixson
Journal:  Aggress Behav       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 3.047

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.