Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Beauty and Body Dysmorphic Disorder pp 45–62Cite as

Evolutionary Basis of Attraction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2190 Accesses

Abstract

The study of beauty has many facets with research clearly showing us what biological indicators account for the perception of attractiveness and the subsequent societal implications. Conventional thinking asserts that standards of beauty are formed from a gradually learned subjective process that is a product of the media; however, research conducted over the past decades contradicts these widely held beliefs. Theoretical and empirical work has attempted to understand physical attractiveness through evolutionary models of signaling. It is the fundamental assumption of evolutionary-based theories that physical attractiveness is largely a reflection of reliable cues to health, quality, and reproduction. Studies on both the animal kingdom and humans suggest that those human traits that are considered attractive function as markers of biologic condition and reproductive potential. In particular, human beauty standards are thought to reflect our evolutionary past and emphasize the role of health assessment in mate choice. Although studies do show variable results, overall, a link, albeit weak in some instances, has been illustrated between attractiveness and perceived health, actual health, and reproductive status for men and women. This chapter explores the research behind evolutionary theories that have proved to be powerful tools in exploring the fundamentals of beauty ideals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Langlois J, Roggman L, Casey RJ, Ritter JM, Rieser-Danner LA, Jenkins VY. Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype? Dev Psychol. 1987;23(3):363–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psychol. 1991;27(1):79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Slater A, Von der Schulenburg C, Brown E, Badenoch M, Butterworth G, Parsons S, et al. Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. Infant Behav Dev. 1998;21(2):345–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Langlois J, Roggman L. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci. 1990;1(2):115–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rubenstein AJ, Kalakanis L, Langlois JH. Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation. Dev Psychol. 1999;35(3):848–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Whitfield T, Slatter P. The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. Br J Psychol. 1979;70(1):65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Martindale C, Moore K. Priming, prototypicality, and preference. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform. 1988;14(4):661–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Langlois J, Roggman L, Musselman L. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychol Sci. 1994;5(4):214–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thornhill R, Grammer K. The body and face of woman: one ornament that signals quality? Evol Hum Behav. 1999;20(2):105–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B. Biol Sci. 2011;366(1571):1638–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gangestad SW, Scheyd GJ. The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Ann Rev Anthropol. 2005;34:523–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Henderson J. Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evol Hum Behav. 2003;24(5):351–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Møller A, Swaddle J. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hamermesh DS. Beauty pays: why attractive people are more successful. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011. 232 p.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson M. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wade N. Extravagant results of nature’s arms race. New York Times. 2009 March 23.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Johnston VS. Mate choice decisions: the role of facial beauty. Trends Cognit Sci. 2006;10(1):9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Andersson M. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature. 1982;299:818–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evol Hum Behav. 2006;27(2):131–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Møller A, Christie P, Lux E. Parasitism, host immune function, and sexual selection. Q Rev Biol. 1999;74:3–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jennions M, Møller A, Petrie M. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol. 2001;76:3–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Blount JD, Metcalfe NB, Birkhead TR, Surai PF. Carotenoid modulation of immune function and sexual attractiveness in zebra finches. Science. 2003;300(5616):125–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rhodes G, Simmons LW, Peters M. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol Hum Behav. 2005;26(2):186–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fink B, Penton-Voak I. Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2002;11:154–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grammer K, Fink B, Moller AP, Thornhill R. Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2003;78(3):385–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones B, Little A, Penton-Voak I, Tiddeman B, Burt D, Perrett D. Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship. Evol Hum Behav. 2001;22(6):417–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hume DK, Montgomerie R. Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of “quality” in women and men. Evol Hum Behav. 2001;22(2):93–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Symons D. The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gangestad S, Buss D. Pathogen prevalence and mate preferences. Ethol Sociobiol. 1993;14:89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 Biol Sci/R Soc. 2007;274(1629):3113–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Buss D. The evolution of desire: strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Buss D. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci. 1989;12:1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev. 1993;100(2):204–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Confer JC, Perilloux C, Buss DM. More than just a pretty face: men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evol Hum Behav. 2010;31(5):348–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Currie TE, Little AC. The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 2009;30(6):409–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kanda N, Tsuchida T, Tamaki K. Testosterone inhibits immunoglobulin production by human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 1996;106(2):410–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yesilova Z, Ozata M, Kocar IH, Turan M, Pekel A, Sengul A, et al. The effects of gonadotropin treatment on the immunological features of male patients with idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85(1):66–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI. Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evol Hum Behav. 2000;21(2):39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, Clark A, Kalick SM, Hightower A, McKay R. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evol Hum Behav. 2001;22(1):31–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Quist MC, DeBruine LM, Little AC, Jones BC. Integrating social knowledge and physical cues when judging the attractiveness of potential mates. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012;48(3):770–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Frost P. Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship. Percept Mot Skill. 1994;79(1 Pt 2):507–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Johnston V, Hagel R, Franklin M, Fink B, Grammer K. Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone medicated adaptive design. Evol Hum Behav. 2001;21:251–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, et al. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature. 1999;399(6738):741–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Little AC, Saxton TK, Roberts SC, Jones BC, Debruine LM, Vukovic J, et al. Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are highest during reproductive age range and lower around puberty and post-menopause. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010;35(6):912–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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/R Soc. 2002;269(1496):1095–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Fink B, Neave N, Manning JT, Grammer K. Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personal Individ Differ. 2006;41(3):491–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shackelford TK, Larsen RJ. Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evol Hum Behav 1999;20(1):71–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cunningham M. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the socio-biology of female facial beauty. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986;50:925–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kalick MS, Zebrowitz LA, Langlois JH, Johnson RM. Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychol Sci. 1998;9(1):8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jones B, Little A, Burt D, Perrett D. When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception. 2004 33:569–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 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 Biol Sci/R Soc. 2001;268(1476):1617–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Singh D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1993;65(2):293–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Zebrowitz L, Rhodes G. Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomolous face overgeneralization effect: cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. J Nonverbal Behav. 2004;28:167–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rhodes G, Chan J, Zebrowitz L, Simmons L. Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 2003;270:S93–S5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Honekopp J, Bartholome T, Jansen G. Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and physical fitness in young women. Hum Nat. 2004;15(2):147–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Honekopp J, Rudolph U, Beier L, Liebert A, Muller C. Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitness in men. Evol Hum Behav. 2007;28(2):106–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Shackelford T, Larsen R. Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1997;72:456–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Mealey L, Bridgstock R, Townsend GC. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1999;76(1):151–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Møller A, Thornhill R. Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am Nat. 1998;151(2):174–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Thornhill R, Moller AP. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1997;72(4):497–548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Livshits G, Kobyliansky E. Fluctuating asymmetry as a possible measure of developmental homeostasis in humans: a review. Hum Biol. 1991;63(4):441–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Moller A, Swaddle J. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Polak M. Developmental instability: causes and consequences. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Gangestad S. Facial masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evol Hum Behav. 2003;24(4):231–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Clark A, Lee K, R M, Akamatsu S. Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-western populations: in search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception. 2001;30:611–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Jasienska G, Lipson SF, Ellison PT, Thune I, Ziomkiewicz A. Symmetrical women have higher potential fertility. Evol Hum Behav. 2006;27(5):390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Weeden J, Sabini J. Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: a review. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(5):635–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Roberts SC, Little AC, Gosling LM, Perrett DI, Carter V, Jones BC, et al. MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 2005;26(3):213–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lie HC, Rhodes G, Simmons LW. Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Evol Int J Org Evol. 2008;62(10):2473–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Little AC, Hockings KJ, Apicella CL, Sousa C. Mixed-ethnicity face shape and attractiveness in humans. Perception. 2012;41(12):1486–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lewis MB. Why are mixed-race people perceived as more attractive? Perception. 2010;39(1):136–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rhodes G, Lee K, Palermo R, Weiss M, Yoshikawa S, Clissa P, et al. Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception. 2005;34(3):319–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Feingold A. Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychol Bull. 1992;111:304–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 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(3):390–423.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Ann Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Hill K, Hurtado M. Ache life history: the ecology and demography of a foraging people. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Feinberg DR, et al. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc Biol Sci/R Soc. 2006;273(1583):135–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Jokela M. Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: evidence from the late twentieth century United States. Evol Hum Behav. 2009;30(5):342–50.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Pawlowski B, Boothroyd L, Perrett D, Kluska S. Is female attractiveness related to final reproductive success? Coll Antropol. 2008;32:457–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Pflüger LS, Oberzaucher E, Katina S, Holzleitner IJ, Grammer K. Cues to fertility: perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success. Evol Hum Behav. 2012;33(6):708–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Grammer K, Fink B, Moller AP, Manning JT. Physical attractiveness and health: comment on Weeden and Sabini (2005). Psychol Bull. 2005;131(5):658–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Manning J, Scutt D, Lewis-Jones D. Developmental stability, ejaculate size, and sperm quality in men. Evol Hum Behav. 1998;19:273–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Soler C, Núñez M, Gutiérrez R, Núñez J, Medina P, Sancho M, et al. Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evol Hum Behav. 2003;24(3):199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Jasienska G, Ziomkiewicz A, Ellison P, Lipson S, Thune I. Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2004;271:1213–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Rebuffe-Scrive M, Lonnroth P, Marin P, Wesslau C, Bjorntorp P, Smith U. Regional adipose tissue metabolism in men and postmenopausal women. Int J Obes. 1987;11(4):347–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Zaadstra BM, Seidell JC, Van Noord PA, te Velde ER, Habbema JD, Vrieswijk B, et al. Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. BMJ. 1993;306(6876):484–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Wass P, Waldenstrom U, Rossner S, Hellberg D. An android body fat distribution in females impairs the pregnancy rate of in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(9):2057–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Panati C. Extraordinary origins of everyday things: William Morrow Paperbacks; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Rios E. Man sues wife over ugly children 2013. http://www.yahalavoice.com/man-sues-wife-over-ugly-children/. Accessed 27 Sept 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Cosmetic and Laser Center, Boston University, 609 Albany Street, J602, 02118, Boston, MA, USA

    Asst. Prof. Neelam A. Vashi MD

Authors
  1. Asst. Prof. Neelam A. Vashi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neelam A. Vashi MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Neelam A. Vashi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vashi, N. (2015). Evolutionary Basis of Attraction. In: Vashi, N. (eds) Beauty and Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17867-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17867-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17866-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17867-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation