The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health
Abstract
Abstract The "good genes" explanation of attractiveness posits that mate preferences favour healthy individuals due to direct and indirect benefits associated with the selection of a healthy mate. Consequently, attractiveness judgements are likely to reflect judgements of apparent health. One physical characteristic that may inform health judgements is fluctuating asymmetry as it may act as a visual marker for genetic quality and developmental stability. Consistent with these suggestions, a number of studies have found relationships between facial symmetry and facial attractiveness. In Study 1, the interplay between facial symmetry, attractiveness, and judgements of apparent health was explored within a partial correlation design. Findings suggest that the attractiveness–symmetry relationship is mediated by a link between judgements of apparent health and facial symmetry. In Study 2, an opposite-sex bias in sensitivity to facial symmetry was observed when judging health. Thus, perceptual analysis of symmetry may be an adaptation facilitating discrimination between potential mates on the basis of apparent health. The findings of both studies are consistent with a "good genes" explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship and problematic for the claim that symmetry is attractive as a by-product of the ease with which the visual recognition system processes symmetric stimuli.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 · Cited by 2,429 · cited 3×
“The opposite-sex bias in sensitivity to facial symmetry is consistent with the findings of Little et al. (2001) who report such a bias when judging attractiveness. The opposite-sex bias was not reported by Rhodes, Zebrowitz, et al. (2001). This may reflect the employment of a different methodology to the present study…”
ResultGrammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994) · Journal of Comparative Psychology · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233 · Cited by 1,110
Cited by
Disgust: evolved function and structure
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0030778 · Cited by 810
Physical Attractiveness and Health in Western Societies: A Review.
Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.635 · Cited by 301
Neural and behavioral responses to attractiveness in adult and infant faces
Hahn, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.08.015 · Cited by 167
Self-citationFacial Adiposity: A Cue to Health?
Coetzee, V., Perrett, D. I., & Stephen, I. D. (2009) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p6423 · Cited by 157
Self-citationWebster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., & Schember, T. O. (2009) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1177/147470490900700301 · Cited by 101
Evolutionary Social Psychology
Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010) · Handbook of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002021 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I.
- Venue
- Evolution and Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 417-429
- ISSN
- 1090-5138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017998013
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.