The neurobiology and evolutionary foundations of the perception of beauty
Ertugrul Esel, Gulustan Polat Esel
PDF
Article No: 12   Article Type :  Review
Beauty in human beings can be defined as physical attractiveness to the opposite sex. Although the perception of attractiveness varies between cultures and individuals to a certain extent, it is established that most of the criteria for attractiveness are common among many cultures. According to evolutionary psychologists, facial and body-related features that people find attractive reflect the adaptations determined by sexual selection, which is one of the driving forces of evolution. These adaptations evolved to explore the mate value and reproductive success of a potential partner. Being attractive provides many social advantages to a person, and it is known that people make some positive attributions about other characteristics of such a person as well. Among humans, features such as facial beauty, youth, body shape, behaviors, voice tone, and ornamentation are important factors in the evaluation of attractiveness of the opposite sex.
Keywords : Attractiveness, evolutionary psychology, mate selection, neurobiology
Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2017;30:368-388
REFERENCES
1. Campbell A. Female competition: causes, constrains, contents, and contexts. J Sex Res 2004; 41:16-26. [CrossRef]

2. Johnston VS. Mate choice decisions: the role of facial beauty. Trends Cogn Sci 2006; 10:9-13. [CrossRef]

3. Little AC, Caldwell CA, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Effects of partner beauty on opposite-sex attractiveness judgments. Arch Sex Behav 2011; 40:1119-1127. [CrossRef]

4. Laeng B, Vermeer O, Sulutvedt U. Is beauty in the face of the beholder? PLoS One 2013; 8:e68395. [CrossRef]

5. Buss DM. Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 56:735-747. [CrossRef]

6. Fisher ML, Voracek M. The shape of beauty: determinants of female physical attractiveness. J Cosmet Dermatol 2006; 5:190-194. [CrossRef]

7. Fisher ML. Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proc Biol Sci 2004; 271(Suppl.5):283-285. [CrossRef]

8. Martin R. Girls don’t talk about garages: perceptions of conversation in same-sex and cross-sex friendships. Pers Relatsh 1997; 4:115-130. [CrossRef]

9. Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA, Shebilske LJ, Lundgren SR. Social influence, sex differences and judgements of beauty: putting the interpersonal back into interpersonal attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993; 65:522-531. [CrossRef]

10. Epley N, Whitchurch E. Mirror, mirror on the wall: enhancement in self-recognition. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2008; 34:1159-1170. [CrossRef]

11. Mu-oz-Reyes JA, Iglesias-Julios M, Pita M, Turiegano E. Facial features: what women perceive as attractive and what men consider attractive. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0132979. [CrossRef]

12. Buggio L, Vercellini P, Somigliana E, Viganò P, Frattaruolo MP, Fedele L. “You are so beautiful”: behind women’s attractiveness towards the biology of reproduction: a narrative review. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012; 28:753-757. [CrossRef]

13. Little AC. Facial attractiveness. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2014; 5:621-634. [CrossRef]

14. Senna A, Abbenante D, Tremolizzo L, Campus G, Strohmenger L. The relationship between facial skeletal class and expert-rated interpersonal skill: an epidemiological survey on young Italian adults. BMC Psychiatry 2006; 6:41. [CrossRef]

15. Riggio R, Woll S. The role of non-verbal and physical attractiveness in the selection of dating partners. J Soc Pers Relat 1984; 1:347-357. [CrossRef]

16. Berscheid E, Dion KK, Walster E, Walster GW. Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. J Exp Soc Psychol 1971; 7:173-189. [CrossRef]

17. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beutiful is good, but …: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness streotype. Psychol Bull 1991; 110:109-128. [CrossRef]

18. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 1999; 3:452-460. [CrossRef]

19. Cash TF, Kilcullen RN. The eye of the beholder: susceptibility to sexism and beautyism in the evaluation of managerial applicants. J Appl Soc Psychol 1985; 15:591-605. [CrossRef]

20. Chiu RK ve Babcock RD. The relative importance of facial attractiveness and gender in Hong Kong selection decisions. International Journal of Human Resource Management 2002; 13:141-155. [CrossRef]

21. Izzett RR, Legiski W. Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a smulated jury setting. J Soc Psychol 1974; 93:271-279. [CrossRef]

22. Ahola AS, Christianson SÅ, Hellström Å. Justice needs a blindfold: effects of gender and attractiveness on prison sentences and attributions of personal characteristics in a judicial process. Psychiatr Psychol Law 2009; 16(Suppl.):90-100. [CrossRef]

23. Ritter JM, Casey RJ, Langlois JH. Adults’ responses to infants varying in appearance of age and attractiveness. Child Dev 1991; 62:68-82. [CrossRef]

24. Schein SS, Langlois JH. Unattractive infant faces elicit negative affect from adults. Infant Behav Dev 2015; 38:130-134. [CrossRef]

25. Golle J, Mast FW, Lobmaier JS. Something to smile about: the interrelationship between attractiveness and emotional expression. Cogn Emot 2014; 28:298-310. [CrossRef]

26. 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 2000; 126:390-423. [CrossRef]

27. Griffin AM, Langlois JH. Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: is beauty good or is ugly bad? Soc Cogn 2006; 24:187-206. [CrossRef]

28. Buss DM. Desires in human mating. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000; 907:39-49. [CrossRef]

29. Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol 2006; 57:199-226. [CrossRef]

30. Grammer K, Fink B, Moller AP, Thornhill R. Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2003; 78:385-407. [CrossRef]

31. Cornwell RE, Boothroyd L, Burt DM, Feinberg DR, Jones BC, Little AC, Pitman R, Whiten S, Perrett DI. Concordant preferences for opposite-sex signals? Human pheromones and facial characteristics. Proc Biol Sci 2004; 271:635-640. [CrossRef]

32. Tottenham N, Leon AC, Casey BJ. The face behind the mask: a developmental study. Dev Sci 2006; 9:288-294. [CrossRef]

33. Hahn AC, Perrett DI. Neural and behavioral responses to attractiveness in adult and infant faces. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014; 46:591-603. [CrossRef]

34. Halgren E, Dale AM, Sereno MI, Tootell RB, Marinkovic K, Rosen BR. Location of human face-selective cortex with respect to retinotopic areas. Hum Brain Mapp 1999; 7:29-37. [CrossRef]

35. Freiwald WA, Tsao DY. Functional compartmentalization and viewpoint generalization within the macaque face-processing system. Science 2010; 330:845-851. [CrossRef]

36. Fairhall SL, Ishai A. Effective connectivity within the distributed cortical network for face perception. Cereb Cortex 2007; 17:2400-2406. [CrossRef]

37. Willis J, Todorov A. First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol Sci 2006; 17:592-598. [CrossRef]

38. Ramsey JL, Langlois JH, Hoss RA, Rubenstein AJ, Griffin AM. Origins of a stereotype: categorization of facial attractiveness by 6-month-old infants. Dev Sci 2004; 7:201-211. [CrossRef]

39. Cellerino A. Psychobiology of facial attractiveness. J Endocrinol Invest 2003; 26(Suppl. 3):45-48.

40. Eisenthal Y, Dror G, Ruppin E. Facial attractiveness: beauty and the machine. Neural Comput 2006; 18:119-142. [CrossRef]

41. Valenzano DR, Mennucci A, Tartarelli G, Cellerino A. Shape analysis of female facial attractiveness. Vision Res 2006; 46:1282-1291. [CrossRef]

42. Bleske-Rechek A, Kolb CM, Stern AS, Quigley K, Nelson LA. Face and body: independent predictors of women’s attractiveness. Arch Sex Behav 2014; 43:1355-1365. [CrossRef]

43. Fink B, Neave N, Seydel H. Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women. Am J Hum Biol 2007; 19:82-87. [CrossRef]

44. Henderson JJA, Anglin JM. Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior 2003; 24:351-356. [CrossRef]

45. Jokela M. Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: evidence from the late 20 century United States. Evol Hum Behav 2009; 30:342-350. [CrossRef]

46. Rantala MJ, Coetzee V, Moore FR, Skrinda I, Kecko S, Krama T, Kivleniece I, Krams I. Facial attractiveness is related to women’s cortisol and body fat, but not with immune responsiveness. Biol Lett 2013; 9:20130255. [CrossRef]

47. Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Feinberg DR, Boothroyd LG, Durrani SJ, Stirrat MR, Whiten S, Pitman RM, Hillier SG. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc Biol Sci 2006; 273:135-140. [CrossRef]

48. Zaidel DW, Cohen JA. The face, beauty, and symmetry: perceiving asymmetry in beautiful faces. Int J Neurosci. 2005; 115:1165-1173. [CrossRef]

49. Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proc Biol Sci 1999; 266:1913-1917. [CrossRef]

50. Penton-Voak IS, Jones BC, Little AC, Baker S, Tiddeman B, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proc Biol Sci 2001; 268:1617-1623. [CrossRef]

51. Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 1999; 20:295-307. [CrossRef]

52. Mealey L, Bridgstock R, Townsend GC. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999; 76:151-158. [CrossRef]

53. Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Palermo R, Simmons LW, Peters M, Lee K, Halberstadt J, Crawford JR. Perceived health contributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism. Perception 2007; 36:1244-1252. [CrossRef]

54. Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, Clark A, Kalick SM, Hightower A, McKay R. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evol Hum Behav 2001; 22:31-46. [CrossRef]

55. Furlow FB, Armijo-Prewitt T, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Fluctuating asymmetry and psychometric intelligence. Proc Biol Sci 1997; 264:823-829. [CrossRef]

56. Hume DK, Montgomerie R. Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of “quality” in women and men. Evol Hum Behav 2001; 22:93-112. [CrossRef]

57. Halberstadt J, Rhodes G. The attractiveness of nonface averages: implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychol Sci 2000; 11:285-289. [CrossRef]

58. Little AC, DeBruine LM, Jones BC. Sex differences in attraction to familiar and unfamiliar opposite-sex faces: men prefer novelty and women prefer familiarity. Arch Sex Behav 2014; 43:973-981. [CrossRef]

59. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev 1993; 100:204-232. [CrossRef]

60. Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 1991; 60:870-883. [CrossRef]

61. Apicella CL, Little AC, Marlowe FW. Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. Perception 2007; 36:1813-1820. [CrossRef]

62. Vingilis-Jaremko L, Maurer D. The influence of averageness on children’s judgments of facial attractiveness. J Exp Child Psychol 2013; 115:624-639. [CrossRef]

63. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 1992; 139(Suppl.):4-35. [CrossRef]

64. Folstad I, Karter AJ. Parasites, bright males, and immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 1992; 139:603-622. [CrossRef]

65. 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 Biol Sci 2002; 269:1095-1100. [CrossRef]

66. Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Jones BC, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Measures of human female condition predict preferences for sexually dimorphic characteristics in men’s faces. J Comp Psychol 2003; 117:264-271. [CrossRef]

67. Scott IM, Pound N, Stephen ID, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS. Does masculinity matter? The contribution of masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. PLoS One 2010; 5:e13585. [CrossRef]

68. Angele MK, Schwacha MG, Ayala A, Chaudry IH. Effect of gender and sex hormones on immune responses following shock. Shock 2000; 14:81-90. [CrossRef]

69. Scott IM, Clark AP, Boothroyd LG, Penton-Voak IS. Do men’s faces really signal heritable immunocompetence? Behav Ecol 2013; 24:579-589. [CrossRef]

70. Voracek M, Manning JT, Ponocny I. Digit ratio (2D:4D) in homosexual and heterosexual men from Austria. Arch Sex Behav 2005; 34:335-340. [CrossRef]

71. Manning JT, Henzi P, Venkatramana P, Martin S, Singh D. Second to fourth digit ratio: ethnic differences and family size in English, Indian and South African populations. Ann Hum Biol 2003; 30:579-588. [CrossRef]

72. Hönekopp J, Voracek M, Manning JT. 2nd to 4th digit ratio (2D:4D) and number of sex partners: evidence for effects of prenatal testosterone in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2006; 31:30-37. [CrossRef]

73. Hönekopp J. Digit ratio (2D:4D) and male facial attractiveness: new data and a meta-analysis. Evol Psychol 2013; 11:944-952. [CrossRef]

74. Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of facial growth. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1996.

75. Thornhill R, Møller AP. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1997; 72:497-548. [CrossRef]

76. Penton-Voak IS, Chen JY. High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evol Hum Behav 2004; 25:229-241. [CrossRef]

77. Pound N, Penton-Voak IS, Surridge AK. Testosterone responses to competition in men are related to facial masculinity. Proc Biol Sci 2009; 276:153-159. [CrossRef]

78. Wells T, Baguley T, Sergeant M, Dunn A. Perceptions of human attractiveness comprising face and voice cues. Arch Sex Behav 2013; 42:805-811. [CrossRef]

79. Kortet R, Vainikka A, Rantala MJ, Myntti J, Taskinen J. In vitro embryo survival and early viability of larvae in relation to male sexual ornaments and parasite resistance in roach, Rutilus rutilus L. J Evol Biol 2004; 17:1337-1344. [CrossRef]

80. Locatello L, Rasotto MB, Evans JP, Pilastro A. Colourful male guppies produce faster and more viable sperm. J Evol Biol 2006; 19:1595-1602. [CrossRef]

81. Rogers DW, Denniff M, Chapman T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. Male sexual ornament size is positively associated with reproductive morphology and enhanced fertility in the stalk-eyed fly Teleopsis dalmanni. BMC Evol Biol 2008; 8:236. [CrossRef]

82. Soler C, de Monserrat JJ, Gutiérrez R, Nu-ez J, Nu-ez M, Sancho M, Pérez-Sánchez F, Cooper TG. Use of the Sperm-Class Analyser for objective assessment of human sperm morphology. Int J Androl 2003; 26:262-270. [CrossRef]

83. Peters M, Rhodes G, Simmons LW. Does attractiveness in men provide clues to semen quality? J Evol Biol 2008; 21:572-579. [CrossRef]

84. Soler C, Kekäläinen J, Nú-ez M, Sancho M, Álvarez JG, Nú-ez J, Yaber I, Gutiérrez R. Male facial attractiveness and masculinity may provide sex- and culture-independent cues to semen quality. J Evol Biol 2014; 27:1930-1938. [CrossRef]

85. Pollet TV, van der Meij L, Cobey KD, Buunk AP. Testosterone levels and their associations with lifetime number of opposite sex partners and remarriage in a large sample of American elderly men and women. Horm Behav 2011; 60:72-77. [CrossRef]

86. Pollet TV, Cobey KD, van der Meij L. Testosterone levels are negatively associated with fatherhood in males, but positively related to offspring count in fathers. PLoS One 2013; 8:e60018. [CrossRef]

87. Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Perrett DI, Little AC, Feinberg DR, Law Smith MJ. Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Arch Sex Behav 2008; 37:78-84. [CrossRef]

88. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 1998; 394:884-887. [CrossRef]

89. Jones BC, Little AC, Watkins CD, Welling LL, DeBruine LM. Reported sexual desire predicts men’s preferences for sexually dimorphic cues in women’s faces. Arch Sex Behav 2011; 40:1281-1285. [CrossRef]

90. Cotterill J. What is really true about the cosmetic industry? Int J Dermatol 1988; 27:682-683. [CrossRef]

91. Marcinkowska UM, Dixson BJ, Kozlov MV, Prasai K, Rantala MJ. Men’s preferences for female facial femininity decline with age. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2017; 72:180-186. [CrossRef]

92. Berry DS, Brownlow S (1989) Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1989; 15:266-279. [CrossRef]

93. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 1994; 108:233-242. [CrossRef]

94. 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 1990; 59:61-72. [CrossRef]

95. Saxton TK, Mackey LL, McCarty K, Neave N. A lover or a fighter? Opposing sexual selection pressures on men’s vocal pitch and facial hair. Behav Ecol 2016; 27:512-519. [CrossRef]

96. Rhodes G, Hickford C, Jeffery L. Sex-typicality and attractiveness: are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive? Br J Psychol 2000; 91:125-140. [CrossRef]

97. Swaddle JP, Reierson GW. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc Biol Sci 2002; 269:2285-2289. [CrossRef]

98. Conway CA, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Little AC. Sexual dimorphism of male face shape, partnership status and the temporal context of relationship sought modulate women’s preferences for direct gaze. Br J Psychol 2010; 101:109-121. [CrossRef]

99. Roney JR, Simmons ZL, Gray PB. Changes in estradiol predict within-women shifts in attraction to facial cues of men’s testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2011; 36:742-749. [CrossRef]

100. Lippa RA. The relation between sex drive and sexual attraction to men and women: a cross-national study of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women. Arch Sex Behav 2007; 36:209-222. [CrossRef]

101. Theodoridou A, Rowe AC, Rogers PJ, Penton-Voak IS. Oxytocin administration leads to a preference for masculinized male faces. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2011; 36:1257-1260. [CrossRef]

102. Booth A, Dabbs JM. Testosterone and men’s marriage. Soc Forces 1993; 72:463-477. [CrossRef]

103. Gray PB, Kahlenberg SM, Barrett ES, Lipson SF, Ellison PT. Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males. Evol Hum Behav 2002; 23:193-201. [CrossRef]

104. Gettler LT, McDade TW, Feranil AB, Kuzawa CW. Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011; 108:16194-16199. [CrossRef]

105. Haselton MG, Gangestad SW. Conditional expression of women’s desires and men’s mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Horm Behav 2006; 49:509-518. [CrossRef]

106. Fink B, Grammer K, Matts PJ. Visual skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health of female faces. Evol Hum Behav 2006; 27:433-442. [CrossRef]

107. Matts PJ, Fink B, Grammer K, Burquest M. Color homogeneity and visual perception of age, health, and attractiveness of female facial skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 57:977-984. [CrossRef]

108. Stephen ID, Law Smith MJ, Stirrat MR, Perrett DI. Facial skin coloration affects perceived health of human faces. Int J Primatol 2009; 30:845-857. [CrossRef]

109. Samson N, Fink B, Matts PJ. Visible skin condition and perception of human facial appearance. Int J Cosmet Sci 2010; 32:167-184. [CrossRef]

110. Fink B, Bunse L, Matts PJ, D’Emiliano D. Visible skin colouration predicts perception of male facial age, health and attractiveness. Int J Cosmet Sci 2012; 34:307-310. [CrossRef]

111. Slayden SM, Moran C, Sams WM Jr, Boots LR, Azziz R. Hyperandrogenemia in patients presenting with acne. Fertil Steril 2001; 75:889-892. [CrossRef]

112. Fink B, Neave N. The biology of facial beauty. Int J Cosmetic Sci 2005; 27:317-325. [CrossRef]

113. Elliot AJ, Kayser DN, Greitemeyer T, Lichtenfeld S, Gramzow RH, Maier MA, Liu H. Red, rank, and romance in women viewing men. J Exp Psychol Gen 2010; 139:399-417. [CrossRef]

114. Thornton MJ. The biological actions of estrogens on skin. Exp Dermatol 2002; 11:487-502. [CrossRef]

115. Van Den Abbeele J, Penton-Voak IS, Attwood AS, Stephen ID, Munafò MR. Increased facial attractiveness following moderate, but not high, alcohol consumption. Alcohol Alcohol 2015; 50:296-301. [CrossRef]

116. Russell R. Sex, beauty, and the relative luminance of facial features. Perception 2003; 32:1093-1107. [CrossRef]

117. van den Berghe PL, Frost P. Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: a case of gene culture evolution? Ethn Racial Stud 1986; 9:87-113. [CrossRef]

118. Swami V, Furnham A, Joshi K. The influence of skin tone, hair length, and hair colour on ratings of women’s physical attractiveness, health and fertility. Scand J Psychol 2008; 49:429-437. [CrossRef]

119. Stephen ID, McKeegan AM. Lip colour affects perceived sex typicality and attractiveness of human faces. Perception 2010; 39:1104-1110. [CrossRef]

120. Kenrick DT, Keefe RC. Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behav Brain Sci 1992; 15:75-133. [CrossRef]

121. Maestripieri D, Klimczuk AC, Traficonte DM, Wilson MC. A greater decline in female facial attractiveness during middle age reflects women’s loss of reproductive value. Front Psychol 2014; 5:179. [CrossRef]

122. Pawłowski B, Dunbar RI. Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions. Proc Biol Sci 1999; 266:281-285. [CrossRef]

123. Mason MF, Tatkow EP, Macrae CN. The look of love: gaze shifts and person perception. Psychol Sci 2005; 16:236-239. [CrossRef]

124. Bashour M, Geist C. Is medial canthal tilt a powerful cue for facial attractiveness? Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 23:52-56. [CrossRef]

125. Geldart S, Maurer D, Carney K. Effects of eye size on adults’ aesthetic ratings of faces and 5-month-olds’ looking times. Perception 1999; 28:361-374. [CrossRef]

126. Hess EH. The role of pupil size in communication. Sci Am 1975; 233:110-112. [CrossRef]

127. Guéguen N. The receptivity of women to courtship solicitation across the menstrual cycle: a field experiment. Biol Psychol 2009; 80:321-324. [CrossRef]

128. Karremans JC, Verwijmeren T. Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: the role of romantic relationship status. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2008; 34:939-950. [CrossRef]

129. Otta E, Folladore Abrosio F, Hoshino RL. Reading a smiling face: messages conveyed by various forms of smiling. Percept Mot Skills 1996; 82:1111-1121. [CrossRef]

130. O’Doherty J, Winston J, Critchley H, Perrett D, Burt DM, Dolan RJ. Beauty in a smile: the role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia 2003; 41:147-155. [CrossRef]

131. Tatarunaite E, Playle R, Hood K, Shaw W, Richmond S. Facial attractiveness: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127:676-682. [CrossRef]

132. Tsukiura T, Cabeza R. Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments: implications for the Beauty-is-Good stereotype. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2011; 6:138-148. [CrossRef]

133. Ishai A. Sex, beauty and the orbitofrontal cortex. Int J Psychophysiol 2007; 63:181-185. [CrossRef]

134. Bzdok D, Langner R, Caspers S, Kurth F, Habel U, Zilles K, Laird A, Eickhoff SB. ALE meta-analysis on facial judgments of trustworthiness and attractiveness. Brain Struct Funct 2011; 215:209-223. [CrossRef]

135. Mende-Siedlecki P, Said CP, Todorov A. The social evaluation of faces: a meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2013; 8:285-299. [CrossRef]

136. Ishizu T, Zeki S. Toward a brain-based theory of beauty. PLoS One 2011; 6:e21852. [CrossRef]

137. Aharon I, Etcoff N, Ariely D, Chabris CF, O’Connor E, Bretier HC. Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron 2001; 32:537-551. [CrossRef]

138. Fink B, Weege B, Neave N, Pham MN, Shackelford TK. Integrating body movement into attractiveness research. Front Psychol 2015; 6:220. [CrossRef]

139. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human fluctuating asymmetry and human sexual behavior. Psychol Sci 1994; 5:297-302. [CrossRef]

140. Manning JT, Scutt D, Lewis-Jones DI. Developmental stability, ejaculate size and sperm quality in men. Evol Hum Behav 1998; 19:273-282. [CrossRef]

141. Tovée MJ, Reinhardt S, Emery JL, Cornelissen PL. Optimum body-mass index and maximum sexual attractiveness. Lancet 1998; 352:548. [CrossRef]

142. Wade TJ, Fuller L, Bresnan I, Schaefer S, Mlynarski L. Weight halo effects: individual differences in personality evaluations and perceived life success of men as a function of weight? Pers Individ Dif 2007; 42:317-324. [CrossRef]

143. Blowers LC, Loxton NJ, Grady-Flesser M, Occhipinti S, Dawe S. The relationship between sociocultural pressure to be thin and body dissatisfaction in preadolescent girls. Eat Behav 2003; 4:229-244. [CrossRef]

144. Myers TA, Crowther JH. Sociocultural pressures, thin-ideal internalization, self-objectification, and body dissatisfaction: could feminist beliefs be a moderating factor? Body Image 2007; 4:296-308. [CrossRef]

145. Grogan S. Body Image: Understanding Body Dissatisfaction in Men, Women and Children. Second ed., London: Routledge, 2008.

146. Seifert T. Anthropomorphic characteristics of centerfold models: trends towards slender figures over time. Int J Eat Disord 2005; 37:271-274. [CrossRef]

147. Stice E, Schupak-Neuberg E, Shaw HE, Stein RI. Relation of media exposure to eating disorder symptomatology: an examination of mediating mechanisms. J Abnorm Psychol 1994; 103:836-840. [CrossRef]

148. Field AE, Camargo CA Jr, Taylor CB, Berkey CS, Colditz GA. Relation of peer and media influences to the development of purging behaviors among preadolescent and adolescent girls. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999; 153:1184-1189. [CrossRef]

149. Glauert R, Rhodes G, Byrne S, Fink B, Grammer K. Body dissatisfaction and the effects of perceptual exposure on body norms and ideals. Int J Eat Disord 2009; 42:443-452. [CrossRef]

150. Stephen ID, Perera AT. Judging the difference between attractiveness and health: does exposure to model images influence the judgments made by men and women? PLoS One 2014; 9:e86302. [CrossRef]

151. Colabianchi N, Ievers-Landis CE, Borawski EA. Weight preoccupation as a function of observed physical attractiveness: ethnic differences among normal-weight adolescent females. J Pediatr Psychol 2006; 31:803-812. [CrossRef]

152. Furnham A, Radley S. Sex differences in the perception of male and female body shapes. Pers Individ Dif 1989; 10:653-662. [CrossRef]

153. Singh D, Zambarano RJ. Offspring sex ratio in women with android body fat distribution. Hum Biol 1997; 69:545-556.

154. Hartz AJ, Barboriak PN, Wong A, Katayama KP, Rimm AA. The association of obesity with infertility and related menstural abnormalities in women. Int J Obes 1979; 3:57-73.

155. Swami V, Tovée MJ. Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: a cross-cultural study. Body Image 2005; 2:115-128. [CrossRef]

156. Singh D. Female mate value at a glance: relationship of waist-to-hip ratio to health, fecundity and attractiveness. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2002; 23(Suppl.4):81-91.

157. Yu DW, Shepard GH Jr. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature 1998; 396:321-322. [CrossRef]

158. Westman A, Marlowe F. How universal are preferences for female waist-hip ratios? Evidence from the Hadza of Tanzania. Evol Hum Behav 1999; 20:219-228. [CrossRef]

159. Schutzwohl A. Judging female figures: a new methodological approach to male attractiveness judgments of female waist-to-hip ratio. Biol Psychol 2006; 71:223-229. [CrossRef]

160. Platek SM, Singh D. Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9042. [CrossRef]

161. Jasienska G, Ziomkiewicz A, Ellison PT, Lipson SF, Thune I. Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proc Biol Sci 2004; 271:1213-1217. [CrossRef]

162. Zaadstra BM, Seidell JC, Van Noord PA, te Velde ER, Habbema JD, Vrieswijk B, Karbaat J. Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. BMJ 1993; 306:484-487. [CrossRef]

163. Lassek WD, Gaulin SJ. Brief communication: menarche is related to fat distribution. Am J Phys Anthropol 2007; 133:1147-1151. [CrossRef]

164. van Hooff MH, Voorhorst FJ, Kaptein MB, Hirasing RA, Koppenaal C, Schoemaker J. Insulin, androgen, and gonadotropin concentrations, body mass index, and waist to hip ratio in the first years after menarche in girls with regular menstrual cycles, irregular menstrual cycles, or oligomenorrhea. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85:1394-1400.

165. Little AC, Roberts CS. Evolution, appearance, and occupational success. Evol Psychol 2012; 10:782-801. [CrossRef]

166. Shepherd JA, Strathman AJ. Attractiveness and height: the role of stature in dating preference, frequency of dating and perceptions of attractiveness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1989; 15:617-627. [CrossRef]

167. Hensley WE. Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence 1994; 29:469-474.

168. Jackson LA, Ervin KS. Height stereotypes of women and men: the liability of shortness for both sexes. J Soc Psychol 1992; 132:433-445. [CrossRef]

169. Chu S, Geary K. Physical stature influences character perception in women. Pers Individ Dif 2005; 38:1927-1934. [CrossRef]

170. Judge TA, Cable DM. The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: preliminary test of a theoretical model. J Appl Psychol 2004; 89:428-441. [CrossRef]

171. Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI, Lipowicz A. Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature 2000; 403:156. [CrossRef]

172. Hampson E, Kimura D. Reciprocal effects of hormonal fluctuations on human motor and perceptual-spatial skills. Behav Neurosci 1988; 102:456-459. [CrossRef]

173. Walsh DG, Hewitt J. Giving men the come on: effect of eye contact and smiling in a bar environment. Percept Mot Skills 1985; 61:873-874. [CrossRef]

174. Dufner M, Rauthmann JF, Czarna AZ, Denissen JJ. Are narcissists sexy? Zeroing in on the effect of narcissism on short-term mate appeal. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2013; 39:870-882. [CrossRef]

175. McCarty K, Hönekopp J, Neave N, Caplan N, Fink B. Male body movements as possible cues to physical strength: a biomechanical analysis. Am J Hum Biol 2013; 25:307-312. [CrossRef]

176. González-Álvarez J. Men dissociate sexual attraction from moral judgement more than women. Int J Psychol 2015; 52:381-388. [CrossRef]

177. Harries ML, Walker JM, Williams DM, Hawkins S, Hughes IA. Changes in the male voice at puberty. Arch Dis Child 1997; 77:445-447. [CrossRef]

178. Collins SA. Men’s voices and women’s choices. Anim Behav 2000; 60:773-780. [CrossRef]

179. Evans S, Neave N, Wakelin D. Relationships between vocal characteristics and body size and shape in human males: an evolutionary explanation for a deep male voice. Biol Psychol 2006; 72:160-163. [CrossRef]

180. Pisanski K, Fraccaro PJ, Tigue CC, O’Connor JJ, Feinberg DR. Return to Oz: voice pitch facilitates assessments of men’s body size. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2014; 40:1316-1331. [CrossRef]

181. Tusing KJ, Dillard JP. The sounds of dominance: vocal precursors of perceived dominance during interpersonal influence. Hum Commun Res 2000; 26:148-171. [CrossRef]

182. Cartei V, Bond R, Reby D. What makes a voice masculine: physiological and acoustical correlates of women’s ratings of men’s vocal masculinity. Horm Behav 2014; 66:569-576. [CrossRef]

183. Hughes SM, Dispenza F, Gallup GG Jr. Rating of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evol Hum Behav 2004; 25:295-304. [CrossRef]

184. Feinberg DR, Jones BC, Law Smith MJ, Moore FR, DeBruine LM, Cornwell RE, Hillier SG, Perrett DI. Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Horm Behav 2006; 49:215-222. [CrossRef]

185. Tobias JA, Montgomerie R, Lyon BE. The evolution of female ornaments and weaponry: social selection, sexual selection and ecological competition. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2012; 367:2274-2293. [CrossRef]

186. Kraaijeveld K. Degree of mutual ornamentation in birds is related to divorce rate. Proc Biol Sci 2003; 270:1785-1791. [CrossRef]

187. LeBas NR, Hockham LR, Ritchie MG. Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on ‘honest’ female ornamentation. Proc Biol Sci 2003; 270:2159-2165. [CrossRef]

188. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Bernet P. Ornamentation predicts reproductive success in female pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1997; 40:145-150. [CrossRef]

189. Ueda S, Koyama T. Influence of eye make-up on the perception of gaze direction. Int J Cosmet Sci 2011; 33:514-518. [CrossRef]

190. Mulhern R, Fieldman G, Hussey T, Lévêque JL, Pineau P. Do cosmetics enhance female Caucasian facial attractiveness? Int J Cosmet Sci 2003; 25:199-205. [CrossRef]

191. Ueno A, Ito A, Kawasaki I, Kawachi Y, Yoshida K, Murakami Y, Sakai S, Iijima T, Matsue Y, Fujii T. Neural activity associated with enhanced facial attractiveness by cosmetics use. Neurosci Lett 2014; 566:142-146. [CrossRef]

192. Elliot AJ, Niesta D. Romantic red: red enhances men’s attraction to women. J Pers Soc Psychol 2008; 95:1150-1164. [CrossRef]

193. Guéguen N, Jacob C. Clothing color and tipping: Gentlemen patrons give more tips to waitresses with red clothes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 2012; 38:275-280. [CrossRef]

194. Guéguen N. Color and women attractiveness: when red clothed women are perceived to have more intense sexual intent. J Soc Psychol 2012; 152:261-265. [CrossRef]

195. Pazda AD, Prokop P, Elliot AJ. Red and romantic rivalry: viewing another woman in red increases perceptions of sexual receptivity, derogation, and intentions to mate-guard. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2014; 40:1260-1269. [CrossRef]

196. Hesslinger VM, Goldbach L, Carbon CC. Men in red: A reexamination of the red-attractiveness effect. Psychon Bull Rev 2015; 22:1142-1148. [CrossRef]

SUBMIT AN ARTICLE
11th National Alcohol and Substance Abuse Congress
DUSUNEN ADAM BROCHURES
COVER
Creative Commons Lisansı

Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi
Bakırköy Prof. Dr. Mazhar Osman Ruh Sağlığı ve Sinir Hastalıkları Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi
Yayıncı
Yerküre Tanıtım ve Yayıncılık Hizmetleri A.Ş.