Research on the perception of faces typically assumes that there are some universal values of attractiveness which are shared across individuals and cultures. The perception of attractiveness may, however, vary across cultures due to local differences in both facial morphology and standards of beauty. To examine cross-cultural consensus in the ratings of attractiveness, we presented a set of 120 non-manipulated photographs of Czech faces to ten samples of raters from both European (Czech Republic, Estonia, Sweden, Romania, Turkey, Portugal) and non-European countries (Brazil, India, Cameroon, Namibia). We examined the relative contribution of three facial markers (sexual shape dimorphism, averageness, fluctuating asymmetry) to the perception of attractiveness as well as the possible influence of eye color, which is a locally specific trait. In general, we found that both male and female faces which were closer to the average and more feminine in shape were regarded as more attractive, while fluctuating asymmetry had no effect. Despite a high cross-cultural consensus on attractiveness standards, significant differences in the perception of attractiveness seem to be related to the level of socio-economic development (as measured by the Human Development Index, HDI). Attractiveness ratings by raters from low-HDI countries (India, Cameroon, Namibia) converged less with ratings from Czech Republic than ratings from high-HDI countries (European countries and Brazil). With respect to eye color, some local patterns emerged which we discuss as a consequence of negative frequency-dependent selection.

Department of Philosophy and History of Science Charles University Prague Prague Czech Republic

Department of Psychology Boğaziçi University Istanbul Turkey

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Henderson AJ, Holzleitner IJ, Talamas SN, Perrett DI. Perception of health from facial cues. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci [Internet]. The Royal Society; 2016. May 5 [cited 2018 Jul 22];371(1693). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27069057 PubMed PMC

Keating CF. Charismatic faces: Social status cues put face appeal in context Facial attrativeness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing; 2002. p. 153–92.

Little AC, Jones BC, Debruine LM. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci [Internet]. 2011. June 12 [cited 2017 Feb 2];366(1571):1638–59. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3130383&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract PubMed PMC

Mueller U, Mazur A. Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signalling of male quality. Behav Ecol. 1997;8(5):569–79.

Todorov A. Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: An extension of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1124:208–24. 10.1196/annals.1440.012 PubMed DOI

Rhodes G. The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annu Rev Psychol [Internet]. 2006;57(1):199–226. Available from: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208 PubMed DOI

Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial attractiveness. 1999;3(12):452–60. PubMed

Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu C-H. “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 [Internet]. 1995. [cited 2018 Jul 25];68(2):261–79. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261

Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull [Internet]. 2000;126(3):390–423. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 PubMed

Andersson MB. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press; 1994.

Møller AP, Thornhill R. Bilateral Symmetry and Sexual Selection: A Meta‐Analysis. Am Nat. 1998; PubMed

Bronstad PM, Russell R. Beauty is in the “we” of the beholder: Greater agreement on facial attractiveness among close relations. Perception. 2007;36(11):1674–81. 10.1068/p5793 PubMed DOI

Germine L, Russell R, Bronstad PM, Blokland GAM, Smoller JW, Kwok H, et al. Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes. Curr Biol. 2015;25(20):2684–9. 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048 PubMed DOI PMC

Hönekopp J. Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006;32(2):199–209. 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199 PubMed DOI

Jones D, Hill K. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat. 1993;4(3):271–96. 10.1007/BF02692202 PubMed DOI

Penton-Voak IS, Jacobson A, Trivers R. Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evol Hum Behav. 2004;25(6):355–70.

Pisanski K, Feinberg DR. Cross-Cultural Variation in Mate Preferences for Averageness, Symmetry, Body Size, and Masculinity. Cross-Cultural Res [Internet]. 2013;47(2):162–97. Available from: 10.1177/1069397112471806 DOI

Scott IM, Clark AP, Josephson SC, Boyette AH, Cuthill IC, Fried RL, et al. Human preferences for sexually dimorphic faces may be evolutionarily novel. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2014;111(40):14388–93. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1409643111 PubMed DOI PMC

Jokela M. Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: Evidence from the late 20 century United States. Evol Hum Behav. 2009;30(5):342–350. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.006 PubMed DOI PMC

Prokop P, Fedor P. Physical attractiveness influences reproductive success of modern men. Journal of Ethology. 2011;29(3):453–458.

Foo YZ, Simmons LW, Rhodes G. Predictors of facial attractiveness and health in humans. Sci Rep [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2017;7(June 2016):1–12. Available from: 10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x PubMed DOI PMC

Johnston VS. Female facial beauty: The fertility hypothesis. Pragmat Cogn [Internet]. 2000. May 22 [cited 2018 Jul 24];8(1):107–22. Available from: https://benjamins.com/catalog/pc.8.1.06joh

Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol [Internet]. 1994. [cited 2018 Jul 24];108(3):233–42. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233 PubMed

Little AC, Jones BC, Feinberg DR, Perrett DI. Men’s strategic preferences for femininity in female faces. Br J Psychol [Internet]. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2014. August [cited 2018 Jul 24];105(3):364–81. Available from: 10.1111/bjop.12043 PubMed DOI

Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, et al. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998;394(6696):884–7. 10.1038/29772 PubMed DOI

Rennels JL, Bronstad PM, Langlois JH. Are attractive men’s faces masculine or feminine? The importance of type of facial stimuli. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2018 Jul 24];34(4):884–93. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.884 PubMed

Zaidi A, White J, Mattern B, Liebowitz C, Puts D, Claes P et al. Facial masculinity does not appear to be a condition-dependent male ornament and does not reflect MHC heterozygosity in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019;116(5):1633–1638. PubMed PMC

Keating CF. Gender and the Physiognomy of Dominance and Attractiveness. Soc Psychol Q [Internet]. 1985;48(1):61 Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033782?origin=crossref

Swaddle JP, Reierson GW. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2002;269(1507):2285–9. PubMed PMC

Langlois J, Roggman L. Attractive Faces Are Only Average. Psychological Science. 1990;1(2):115–121.

Rhodes G, Tremewan T. Understanding face recognition: Caricauture effects, inversion, and the homogeneity problem. Vis cogn [Internet]. Taylor & Francis Group; 1994. April 24 [cited 2018 Jul 24];1(2–3):275–311. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506289408402303 DOI

Rhodes G, Sumich A, Byatt G. Are Average Facial Configurations Attractive Only Because of Their Symmetry? Psychol Sci [Internet]. 1999. January 6 [cited 2018 Jul 24];10(1):52–8. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9280.00106 DOI

Lie HC, Rhodes G, Simmons LW. GENETIC DIVERSITY REVEALED IN HUMAN FACES. Evolution (N Y) [Internet]. 2008. October [cited 2018 Jul 24];62(10):2473–86. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18691260 PubMed

Roberts SC, Little AC, Gosling LM, Jones BC, Perrett DI, Carter V, et al. MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans. Biol Lett. 2005;1(4):400–3. 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0343 PubMed DOI PMC

Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Clark A, Kieran L, McKay R, Akamatsu S. Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception. 2001;30(5):611–25. 10.1068/p3123 PubMed DOI

Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings Biol Sci [Internet]. The Royal Society; 1999. September 22 [cited 2018 Jul 24];266(1431):1913–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10535106 PubMed PMC

Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human facial beauty. Hum Nat [Internet]. 1993. September [cited 2018 Jul 24];4(3):237–69. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24214366 10.1007/BF02692201 PubMed DOI

Lee AJ, Mitchem DG, Wright MJ, Martin NG, Keller MC, Zietsch BP. Facial averageness and genetic quality: Testing heritability, genetic correlation with attractiveness, and the paternal age effect. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2016;37(1):61–6. Available from: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.08.003 PubMed DOI PMC

DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Unger L, Little AC, Feinberg DR. Dissociating Averageness and Attractiveness: Attractive Faces Are Not Always Average. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007;33(6):1420–30. PubMed

Said CP, Todorov A. A statistical model of facial attractiveness. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(9):1183–90. 10.1177/0956797611419169 PubMed DOI

Alley TR, Cunningham MR. Article Commentary: Averaged Faces Are Attractive, but Very Attractive Faces Are Not Average. Psychol Sci [Internet]. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 1991. March 25 [cited 2018 Jul 23];2(2):123–5. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00113.x DOI

Baudouin JY, Tiberghien G. Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2004;117(3):295–312. PubMed

Jones D. Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny. 1995;36(December).

Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 1994. March 17 [cited 2018 Jul 23];368(6468):239–42. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/368239a0 PubMed DOI

Wehr P, MacDonald K, Lindner R, Yeung G. Stabilizing and directional selection on facial paedomorphosis. Hum Nat [Internet]. Springer-Verlag; 2001. December [cited 2018 Jul 23];12(4):383–402. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12110-001-1004-z PubMed DOI

Özener B, Fink B. Facial symmetry in young girls and boys from a slum and a control area of Ankara, Turkey. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. Elsevier; 2010. November 1 [cited 2018 Jul 24];31(6):436–41. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S109051381000070X

Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Behavior. Psychol Sci [Internet]. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 1994. September 6 [cited 2018 Jul 24];5(5):297–302. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00629.x DOI

Banks GC, Batchelor JH, Mcdaniel MA. Intelligence Smarter people are (a bit) more symmetrical: A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and fl uctuating asymmetry. Intelligence [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2010;38(4):393–401. Available from: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.003 DOI

Jones BC, Little AC, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health Support for a ‘“good genes”’ explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship. 2001;22:417–29.

Muñoz-Reyes JA, Iglesias-Julios M, Pita M, Turiegano E. Facial Features: What Women Perceive as Attractive and What Men Consider Attractive. PLoS One [Internet]. 2015. January [cited 2017 Feb 11];10(7):e0132979 Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4498779&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract 10.1371/journal.pone.0132979 PubMed DOI PMC

Farrera A, Villanueva M, Quinto-Sánchez M, González-José R. The relationship between facial shape asymmetry and attractiveness in Mexican students. Am J Hum Biol. 2015;27(3):387–96. 10.1002/ajhb.22657 PubMed DOI

Penton-Voak IS, Jones BC, Little AC, Baker S, Tiddeman B, Burt DM, et al. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2001;268(1476):1617–23. PubMed PMC

Soler C, Kekäläinen J, Núñez M, Sancho M, Núñez J, Yaber I, et al. Male Facial Anthropometry and Attractiveness. Perception [Internet]. 2012. October [cited 2017 Feb 11];41(10):1234–45. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/p7214 PubMed DOI

Van Dongen S. Associations between asymmetry and human attractiveness: Possible direct effects of asymmetry and signatures of publication bias. Ann Hum Biol [Internet]. 2011. May [cited 2017 Feb 11];38(3):317–23. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21271817 10.3109/03014460.2010.544676 PubMed DOI

Rhodes G, & Simmons LW. Symmetry, attractiveness and sexual selection In: Dunbar RIM, Barrett L, eds. The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. Oxford: University Press; 2007. p. 333–364.

Fink B, Matts PJ, D’Emiliano D, Bunse L, Weege B, Röder S. Colour homogeneity and visual perception of age, health and attractiveness of male facial skin. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol [Internet]. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2011. November [cited 2018 Jul 24];26(12):no-no. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04316.x PubMed DOI

Lefevre CE, Perrett DI. Fruit over sunbed: Carotenoid skin colouration is found more attractive than melanin colouration. Q J Exp Psychol [Internet]. 2015. February [cited 2018 Jul 24];68(2):284–93. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25014019 PubMed

Kleisner K, Kočnar T, Tureček P, Stella D, Akoko RM, Třebický V, et al. African and European perception of African female attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 2017;38(6):744–55.

Bovet J, Barthes J, Durand V, Raymond M, Alvergne A. Men’s Preference for Women’s Facial Features: Testing Homogamy and the Paternity Uncertainty Hypothesis. PLoS One. 2012;7(11). PubMed PMC

Edwards M, Cha D, Krithika S, Johnson M, Cook G, Parra EJ. Iris pigmentation as a quantitative trait: Variation in populations of European, East Asian and South Asian ancestry and association with candidate gene polymorphisms. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2016;29(2):141–62. 10.1111/pcmr.12435 PubMed DOI

Frost P. European hair and eye color. A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evol Hum Behav. 2006;27(2):85–103.

Frost P. The Puzzle of European Hair, Eye, and Skin Color. Adv Anthropol [Internet]. 2014;04(02):78–88. Available from: http://www.scirp.org/journal/doi.aspx?DOI = 10.4236/aa.2014.42011

Jablonski NG, Chaplin G. The colours of humanity: The evolution of pigmentation in the human lineage. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2017;372(1724). PubMed PMC

Janif ZJ, Brooks RC, Dixson BJ. Negative frequency-dependent preferences and variation in male facial hair. Biol Lett. 2014;10(4). PubMed PMC

Thelen TH. Minority type human mate preference. Biodemography Soc Biol [Internet]. 1983;30(2):162–80. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19485565.1983.9988531 PubMed DOI

Fink B, Hufschmidt C, Hirn T, Will S, McKelvey G, Lankhof J. Age, health and attractiveness perception of virtual (rendered) human hair. Front Psychol. 2016;7(DEC):1–12. PubMed PMC

Janif ZJ, Brooks RC, Dixson BJ. Are Preferences for Women’s Hair Color Frequency-Dependent? Adapt Hum Behav Physiol. 2015;1(1):54–71.

Lawson ED. Hair Color, Personality, and the Observer. Psychol Rep [Internet]. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 1971. February 1 [cited 2018 Jul 24];28(1):311–22. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1971.28.1.311 PubMed DOI

Sorokowski P. Attractiveness of Blonde Women in Evolutionary Perspective: Studies with Two Polish Samples. Percept Mot Skills [Internet]. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 2008. June 1 [cited 2018 Jul 24];106(3):737–44. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pms.106.3.737-744 PubMed DOI

Swami V, Barrett S. British men’s hair color preferences: An assessment of courtship solicitation and stimulus ratings. Scand J Psychol. 2011;52(6):595–600. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00911.x PubMed DOI

Bressan P, Damian V. Fathers’ eye colour sways daughters’ choice of both long- and short-term partners. Sci Rep [Internet]. Springer US; 2018;8(1):1–9. Available from: 10.1038/s41598-018-23784-7 PubMed DOI PMC

Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour. Evol Hum Behav. 2003;24(1):43–51.

Wilson GD, Barrett PT. Parental characteristics and partner choice: Some evidence for oedipal imprinting. J Biosoc Sci. 1987;19(2):157–61. 10.1017/s0021932000016758 PubMed DOI

Laeng B, Mathisen R, Johnsen JA. Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the same eye color? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007;61(3):371–84.

Salter F. Carrier females and sender males: An evolutionary hypothesis linking female attractiveness, family resemblance, and paternity confidence. Ethol Sociobiol. 1996;17(4):211–20.

Rantala MJ, Marcinkowska UM. The role of sexual imprinting and the Westermarck effect in mate choice in humans. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65(5):859–73.

Prokop P, Obertová Z, Fedor P. Paternity cues and mating opportunities: what makes fathers good?. acta ethologica. 2010;13(2):101–107.

Kleisner K, Kočnar T, Rubešová A, Flegr J. Eye color predicts but does not directly influence perceived dominance in men. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;49(1):59–64.

Kleisner K, Priplatova L, Frost P, Flegr J. Trustworthy-Looking Face Meets Brown Eyes. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):1–7. PubMed PMC

Hinsz VB, Stoesser CJ, Matz DC. The Intermingling of Social and Evolutionary Psychology Influences on Hair Color Preferences. Curr Psychol. 2013;32(2):136–49.

Swami V, Rozmus-Wrzesinska M, Voracek M, Haubner T, Danel D, Pawłowski B, et al. The influence of skin tone, body weight, and hair colour on perceptions of women’s attractiveness and health: A cross-cultural investigation. J Evol Psychol [Internet]. 2008;6(4):321–41. Available from: http://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/JEP.6.2008.4.4 DOI

Moore FR, Coetzee V, Contreras-Garduño J, Debruine LM, Kleisner K, Krams I, et al. Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for cues to sex- and stress-hormones in the male face. Biol Lett [Internet]. The Royal Society; 2013. June 23 [cited 2018 Jul 24];9(3):20130050 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23536442 PubMed PMC

DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Crawford JR, Welling LLM, Little AC. The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;277(1692):2405–10. PubMed PMC

DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Crawford JR, Welling LLM. Further evidence for regional variation in women’s masculinity preferences. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci [Internet]. The Royal Society; 2011. March 22 [cited 2018 Jul 24];278(1707):813–4. Available from: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspb.2010.2200 DOI

DeBruine LM, Little AC, Jones BC. Extending parasite-stress theory to variation in human mate preferences. Behav Brain Sci [Internet]. 2012. April [cited 2018 Jul 24];35(02):86–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22289354 PubMed

Marcinkowska UM, Kozlov MV, Cai H, Contreras-Garduño J, Barnaby J, Oana GA, et al. Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces. Biol Lett. 2014;10:2013–6. PubMed PMC

Marcinkowska U, Rantala M, Lee A, Kozlov M, Aavik T, Cai H et al. Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1). PubMed PMC

Rhodes G, Chan J, Zebrowitz LA, Simmons LW. Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci [Internet]. 2003. August 7 [cited 2018 Aug 6];270(Suppl_1):S93–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12952647 PubMed PMC

Scott IML, Clark AP, Boothroyd LG, Penton-Voak IS. Do men’s faces really signal heritable immunocompetence? Behav Ecol. 2013;24(3):579–89. 10.1093/beheco/ars092 PubMed DOI PMC

Dixson BJ, Little AC, Dixson HG, Brooks RC. Do prevailing environmental factors influence human preferences for facial morphology? Behav Ecol. 2017;28(5):1217–27.

Little AC, Apicella CL, Marlowe FW. Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: Data from the UK and the Hadza, an isolated group of hunter-gatherers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2007;274(1629):3113–7. PubMed PMC

Apicella CL, Little AC, Marlowe FW. Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. Perception. 2007;36(12):1813–20. 10.1068/p5601 PubMed DOI

Little AC. Facial appearance and leader choice in different contexts: Evidence for task contingent selection based on implicit and learned face-behaviour/face-ability associations. Leadersh Q [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2014;25(5):865–74. Available from: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.002 DOI

Třebický V, Fialová J, Kleisner K, Havlíček J. Focal length affects depicted shape and perception of facial images. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):1–14. PubMed PMC

Danel DP, Dziedzic-Danel A, Kleisner K. Does age difference really matter? Facial markers of biological quality and age difference between husband and wife. HOMO- J Comp Hum Biol [Internet]. Elsevier GmbH.; 2016;67(4):337–47. Available from: 10.1016/j.jchb.2016.05.002 PubMed DOI

Adams DC, Otárola‐Castillo E. geomorph: an r package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol Evol [Internet]. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2013. [cited 2018 Jul 24];4(4):393–9. Available from: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/2041-210X.12035%4010.1111/%28ISSN%292041-210X.TOPMETHODS DOI

Mitteroecker P, Windhager S, Müller GB, Schaefer K. The Morphometrics of “Masculinity” in Human Faces. Raia P, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2015. February 11 [cited 2018 Jul 24];10(2):e0118374 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25671667 10.1371/journal.pone.0118374 PubMed DOI PMC

Klingenberg C, McIntyre G. Geometric Morphometrics of Developmental Instability: Analyzing Patterns of Fluctuating Asymmetry with Procrustes Methods. Evolution. 1998;52(5):1363 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb02018.x PubMed DOI

Mardia K, Bookstein F, Moreton I. ‘Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes’. Biometrika. 2005;92(1):249–250.

Klingenberg C, Barluenga M, Meyer A. SHAPE ANALYSIS OF SYMMETRIC STRUCTURES: QUANTIFYING VARIATION AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND ASYMMETRY. Evolution. 2002;56(10):1909–1920. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00117.x PubMed DOI

United Nations Development Programme. Human development report 2015. New York; 2015.

Walsh S, Wollstein A, Liu F, Chakravarthy U, Rahu M, Seland JH, et al. DNA-based eye colour prediction across Europe with the IrisPlex system. Forensic Sci Int Genet [Internet]. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2012;6(3):330–40. Available from: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.07.009 PubMed DOI

Balaresque P, King TE. Human Phenotypic Diversity: An Evolutionary Perspective. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2016;119:349–90. 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2016.02.001 PubMed DOI

Beals RL., Hoijer H. An introduction to anthropology. New York: Macmillan; 1965.

Augood C, Fletcher A, Bentham G, Chakravarthy U, de Jong PTVM, Rahu M, et al. Methods for a population-based study of the prevalence of and risk factors for age-related maculopathy and macular degeneration in elderly European populations: the EUREYE study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol [Internet]. 2004. April [cited 2018 Jul 24];11(2):117–29. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15255027 10.1076/opep.11.2.117.28160 PubMed DOI

Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff P, Christensen R. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017;82(13).

Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol [Internet]. 1990. [cited 2018 Jul 25];59(1):61–72. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.61 PubMed

Stirrat M, Perrett DI. Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(3):349–54. 10.1177/0956797610362647 PubMed DOI

Stephen ID, Scott IML, Coetzee V, Pound N, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS. Cross-cultural effects of color, but not morphological masculinity, on perceived attractiveness of men’s faces. Evol Hum Behav. 2012;33(4):260–7.

Puts DA. Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. 2010. May [cited 2018 Jul 25];31(3):157–75. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513810000279

Lu HJ, Zhu XQ, Chang L. Good genes, good providers, and good fathers: Economic development involved in how women select a mate. Evol Behav Sci [Internet]. 2015. [cited 2018 Jul 25];9(4):215–28. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/ebs0000048

Lyons M, Marcinkowska U, Moisey V, Harrison N. The effects of resource availability and relationship status on women’s preference for facial masculinity in men: An eye-tracking study. Pers Individ Dif [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2016;95:25–8. Available from: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.025 DOI

Carrito M de L, Santos IMB dos, Lefevre CE, Whitehead RD, Silva CF da, Perrett DI. The role of sexually dimorphic skin colour and shape in attractiveness of male faces. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2016;37(2):125–33. Available from: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.09.006 DOI

Rhodes G, Jeffery L, Watson TL, Clifford CWG, Nakayama K. Fitting the Mind to the World: Face Adaptation and Attractiveness Aftereffects. Psychol Sci. 2003;14(6):558–66. 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1465.x PubMed DOI

Abend P, Pflüger LS, Koppensteiner M, Coquerelle M, Grammer K. The sound of female shape: A redundant signal of vocal and facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 2015;36(3):174–81.

Komori M, Kawamura S, Ishihara S. Averageness or symmetry: Which is more important for facial attractiveness? Acta Psychol (Amst) [Internet]. Elsevier B.V.; 2009;131(2):136–42. Available from: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.03.008 PubMed DOI

Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R. Symmetry and Human Facial Attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. Elsevier; 1999. September 1 [cited 2018 Jul 25];20(5):295–307. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513899000148

Pound N, Lawson DW, Toma AM, Richmond S, Zhurov AI, Penton-Voak IS. Facial fluctuating asymmetry is not associated with childhood ill-health in a large British cohort study. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2014;281(1792). PubMed PMC

Van Dongen S. Associations among facial masculinity, physical strength, fluctuating asymmetry and attractiveness in young men and women. Ann Hum Biol. 2014;41(3):205–13. 10.3109/03014460.2013.847120 PubMed DOI

Van Dongen S. Fluctuating asymmetry and masculinity/femininity in humans: A meta-analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41(6):1453–60. 10.1007/s10508-012-9917-7 PubMed DOI

Van Dongen S, Gangestad SW. Human fluctuating asymmetry in relation to health and quality: a meta-analysis. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. 2011. November [cited 2018 Jul 25];32(6):380–98. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513811000249

Jones A, Jaeger B. Biological Bases of Beauty Revisited: The Effect of Symmetry, Averageness, and Sexual Dimorphism on Female Facial Attractiveness. Symmetry. 2019;11(2):279.

Mogilski JK, Welling LLM. The Relative Importance of Sexual Dimorphism, Fluctuating Asymmetry, and Color Cues to Health during Evaluation of Potential Partners’ Facial Photographs: A Conjoint Analysis Study. Hum Nat. Human Nature; 2017;28(1):53–75. 10.1007/s12110-016-9277-4 PubMed DOI

Graham J, Özener B. Fluctuating Asymmetry of Human Populations: A Review. Symmetry (Basel) [Internet]. 2016;8(12):154 Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/8/12/154

Kavas S, Thornton A. Adjustment and hybridity in Turkish family change: Perspectives from developmental idealism. J Fam Hist. 2013;38(2):223–41.

Sakallı-Uğurlu N. Quantitative Empirical Studies on Women’s Issues in Islamic Cultures: Introduction to Special Issue. Sex Roles. 2016;75(11–12):535–42.

Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu İ, Ergöçmen BA. Early Marriage: Trends in Turkey, 1978–2008. J Fam Issues. 2014;35(12):1707–24.

Karandashev V, Zarubko E, Artemeva V, Neto F, Surmanidze L, Feybesse C. Sensory Values in Romantic Attraction in Four Europeans Countries: Gender and Cross-Cultural Comparison. Cross-Cultural Res. 2016;50(5):478–504.

Bánfai Z, Melegh B, Sümegi K, Hadzsiev K, Miseta A, Kásler M et al. Revealing the Genetic Impact of the Ottoman Occupation on Ethnic Groups of East-Central Europe and on the Roma Population of the Area. Frontiers in Genetics. 2019;10. PubMed PMC

Iyigun M. Lessons from the Ottoman Harem on Culture, Religion, and Wars. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 2013;61(4):693–730.

Deniz A., Özgür E.M. Rusya’dan Türkiye’ye ulus aşırı göç: Antalya’daki Rus göçmenler. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi 2010; 19(1): 13–30.

Deniz A, Özgür E. Antalya'daki Rus Gelinler: Göçten Evliliğe, Evlilikten Göçe. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 2014; 3(27): 175–151.

Davidjants B, Ross J. Conflicts in music in the South Caucasus: The case of Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Musicae Scientiae. 2016;21(4):430–441.

Türkmenoğlu Berkan S, Manzakoğlu B. Evil Eye Belief in Turkish Culture: Myth of Evil Eye Bead. Turk Online J Des Art Commun. 2016;6(2):193–204.

Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Schmidt N, et al. Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2002;269(1494):873–80. PubMed PMC

Coetzee V, Greeff JM, Stephen ID, Perrett DI. Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS One. 2014;9(7). PubMed PMC

Danel DP, Fedurek P, Coetzee V, Stephen ID, Nowak N, Stirrat M, et al. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Population-Specific Face Shape Preferences (Homo sapiens). Ethology. 2012;118(12):1173–81.

Sorokowski P, Kościński K, Sorokowska A. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder but ugliness culturally universal? Facial preferences of polish and yali (papua) people. Evol Psychol. 2013;11(4):907–25.

Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Palermo R, Simmonst LW, Peters M, Lee K, et al. Perceived health contributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism. Perception. 2007;36(8):1244–52. 10.1068/p5712 PubMed DOI

Gray PB, Frederick DA. Body image and body type preferences in st. kitts, caribbean: A cross-cultural comparison with U.S. samples regarding attitudes towards muscularity, body fat, and breast size. Evol Psychol. 2012;10(3):631–55. PubMed

Mo JJY, Cheung KWK, Gledhill LJ, Pollet T V., Boothroyd LG, Tovée MJ. Perceptions of Female Body Size and Shape in China, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. Cross-Cultural Res [Internet]. 2014;48(1):78–103. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1069397113510272 DOI

Tovée M, Swami V, Furnham A, Mangalparsad R. Changing perceptions of attractiveness as observers are exposed to a different culture☆. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. 2006. November [cited 2018 Jul 26];27(6):443–56. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513806000584

Swami V. Cultural Influences on Body Size Ideals. Eur Psychol [Internet]. Hogrefe Publishing; 2015. January 1 [cited 2018 Jul 26];20(1):44–51. Available from: http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1016-9040/a000150 DOI

Schneider TM, Hecht H, Stevanov J, Carbon CC. Cross-ethnic assessment of body weight and height on the basis of faces. Pers Individ Dif. Elsevier Ltd; 2013;55(4):356–60.

Batres C, Kannan M, Perrett DI. Familiarity with Own Population’s Appearance Influences Facial Preferences. Hum Nat. Human Nature; 2017;28(3):344–54. 10.1007/s12110-017-9289-8 PubMed DOI PMC

Thayer ZM, Dobson SD. Geographic Variation in Chin Shape Challenges the Universal Facial Attractiveness Hypothesis. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):1–5. PubMed PMC

Young SG, Hugenberg K, Bernstein MJ, Sacco DF. Perception and Motivation in Face Recognition: A Critical Review of Theories of the Cross-Race Effect. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2012;16(2):116–42. PubMed

Brooks R, Scott IM, Maklakov AA, Kasumovic MM, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS. National income inequality predicts women’s preferences for masculinized faces better than health does. Proceedings Biol Sci [Internet]. The Royal Society; 2011. March 22 [cited 2018 Jul 26];278(1707):810–2; discussion 813–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21147809 PubMed PMC

Batres C, Perrett DI. The influence of the digital divide on face preferences in El Salvador: People without internet access prefer more feminine men, more masculine women, and women with higher adiposity. PLoS One. 2014;9(7). PubMed PMC

Pollet T V., Tybur JM, Frankenhuis WE, Rickard IJ. What can cross-cultural correlations teach us about human nature? Hum Nat. 2014;25(3):410–29. 10.1007/s12110-014-9206-3 PubMed DOI

Basu J, Ray R. Friends and Lovers: A Study of Human Mate Selection in India. Psychol -An Int J Psychol Orient [Internet]. Psychologia Society; 2001. [cited 2018 Jul 26];44(4):281–91. Available from: http://joi.jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.JSTAGE/psysoc/2001.281?from=CrossRef

Muggleton NK, Fincher CL. Unrestricted sexuality promotes distinctive short- and long-term mate preferences in women. Pers Individ Dif. Elsevier Ltd; 2017;111:169–73.

Bejanyan K, Marshall T, Ferenczi N. Romantic ideals, mate preferences, and anticipation of future difficulties in marital life: a comparative study of young adults in India and America. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014;5. PubMed PMC

Bugay A, Delevi R. “How can I say I love you to an American man and mean it?” Meaning of marriage among Turkish female students living in the U.S. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;5:1464–1470.

Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, et al. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 1999. June 24 [cited 2018 Jul 26];399(6738):741–2. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/21557 10.1038/21557 PubMed DOI

Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2002;269(1496):1095–100. PubMed PMC

Little AC, Cohen DL, Jones BC, Belsky J. Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007;61(6):967–73.

Little AC, Mannion H. Viewing attractive or unattractive same-sex individuals changes self-rated attractiveness and face preferences in women. Anim Behav [Internet]. Academic Press; 2006. November 1 [cited 2018 Jul 26];72(5):981–7. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347206002697?via%3Dihub

Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, DeBruine LM, Perrett DI. Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol Hum Behav [Internet]. 2008. May [cited 2018 Jul 23];29(3):211–8. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513808000032

Frost P, Kleisner K, Flegr J. Health status by gender, hair color, and eye color: Red-haired women are the most divergent. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0190238 10.1371/journal.pone.0190238 PubMed DOI PMC

Mitra S. ‘Miss World’ meets ‘dutiful daughter-in-law’: modernity, marriage, motherhood and the Bollywood female star. Celebrity Studies. 2018;10(2):228–246.

Gelles, Rebecca. Fair and Lovely: Standards of Beauty, Globalization, and the Modern Indian Woman. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection; 2011; 1145.

Congruence in European and Asian perception of Vietnamese facial attractiveness, averageness, symmetry and sexual dimorphism

Does the primate face cue personality?

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