Content uploaded by Slavka Demuthova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Slavka Demuthova on Sep 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
GRANT journal
ISSN 1805-062X, 1805-0638 (online), ETTN 072-11-00002-09-4
EUROPEAN GRANT PROJECTS | RESULTS | RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE
Masculinity and femininity in attractiveness of human face according to
sex, brain dimorphism, and mating preferences
Slávka Démuthová1
1 Katedra psychológie, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave; Nám. J. Herdu 2, 917 01 Trnava;
slavka.demuthova@ucm.sk
Grant: KEGA 004TTU-4/2015 a FF UCM/Dem-2015
Název grantu: „Kognitívne aspekty estetickej skúsenosti“ a „2D:4D a jeho vzťah k vybraným psychickým charakteristikám“
Oborové zaměření: AN-Psychológia
© GRANT Journal, MAGNANIMITAS Assn.
Abstract Commonly spread opinion that the attractiveness of the
face is the „mater of the taste“, or that the “beauty is in the eye of
the beholder” has been disrupted by the findings, that the consensus
about the human face attractiveness is relatively high. Several
researches revealed the most common tendencies influencing the
human face assessment and its attractiveness. A special role in face
attractiveness assessment plays the presence of sexual dimorphic
traits of the observed object as well as the variables tight to
sex/gender characteristics of the evaluator. Research was based on
the attractiveness assessment of male and female face composites
stressing the features of masculinity and femininity. Choices of the
most attractive face has been compared in relation to the sex, gender
(through digit ratio 2D:4D), and mating preferences of the
observers. Subjects who assessed the face composites according it
attractiveness were 413 participants from which 280 (67,8%) were
female. The mean age of the sample was 21,41 years and all
belonged to European race. Results show that there are no
significant connections of sex, brain dimorphism, or mating
preferences with the way how people evaluate the attractiveness of
human face. The differences were found between the male and
female face assessment. Males and females constantly assigned the
feminine female face as the most attractive.
Key words Face attractiveness, masculinity, femininity, sex, digit
ratio (2D:4D), mating preferences
1. INTRODUCTION
The attractiveness of human face is in the centre of the attention of
various scientific disciplines. Although they track various aims, the
need to discover what is attractive and consequently what makes the
face attractive is their common interest.
Commonly spread opinion that the attractiveness of the face is the
„mater of the taste“ (Dion, 2002; Lucker, Beane, & Guire, 1981) or
that the “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (Foster, 2008; Foos &
Clark, 2011; McConnell et al., 2015) has been disrupted by the
findings, that the consensus about the human face attractiveness is
relatively high (Mealey, Bridgstock, & Townsend, 1999; Rhode et
al., 2001; Etcoff, 1999; Swami & Furnham, 2008 and many others).
Within this consensus it is possible to state, that faces that are e.g.
younger (Cunningham, 1986; Ebner, 2008), more symmetrical
(Perrett et al., 1999; Demuthova, 2007; Zaidel & Hessamian, 2010),
happier (O'Doherty et al., 2003; Golle, Mast, & Lobmaier, 2014;
Sun et al., 2015), average (Langlois, Roggman, & Musselman,
1994) or with healthy skin (Fink et al., 2012) are also perceived as
more attractive.
A special role in face attractiveness plays the presence of sexual
dimorphic traits. Masculinity in male faces and femininity in female
ones is a very important factor of their attractiveness (Rhodes,
Hickford, & Jeffrey, 2000; Little & Hancock, 2002). This
importance is based on the evolutionary mechanism of preference
for exaggerated secondary characteristics of opposite sex (Penton-
Voak & Perrett, 2000) which are tight to hormone levels (Owens &
Short, 1995). High testosterone levels are connected with forward
growth of the brow ridges, increase the size of bones of the jaw,
lower face and cheekbones in males (Thornhill & Gangestad 1999)
and refer to masculine face prototype (Mitteroecker et al., 2015). On
the other hand, oestrogen inhibits this growth leading to high
eyebrows, gracile jaws and fuller lips, small lower face, relatively
flat mid-face in females (Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000).
Lots of studies proved, that female faces with feminine features
mentioned above are considered as attractive (Grammer &
Thornhill, 1994; Cornwell et al, 2004; Little et al., 2014). Studies
measuring facial features from photographs of women
(Cunningham, 1986; Jones & Hill, 1993) and studies manipulating
facial composites (Perrett et al., 1998) indicate that feminine
features increase the attractiveness of female faces (Little, Jones &
DeBruine, 2011). Similar, but not so evident (Scott et al., 2010;
Morrison et al. 2010) outcomes provide the studies on male face
attractiveness and masculinity. Masculinity is not always the feature
women prefer when assessing the male face attractiveness (Swami
& Furnham, 2008; Little & Hancock, 2002; Swaddle & Reierson,
2003). There are several possible explanations referring to combined
mating strategies (Smith, Jones, & Allan, 2013), supportive presence
of social status (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990), hormonal
activity etc. It is therefore possible, that mechanisms that lead into
the preference of attractive face in males are different from those in
females.
The role of gender and sexual orientation of the observer in the
human face attractiveness assessment has been also examined,
although the studies considering this area are rather rare. E. g.
Bailey et al. (1997) found that homosexual men preferred men who
were described to be masculine more than they preferred men who
10
GRANT journal
ISSN 1805-062X, 1805-0638 (online), ETTN 072-11-00002-09-4
EUROPEAN GRANT PROJECTS | RESULTS | RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE
were described to be feminine. Homosexual women, on the other
hand, showed no preference for masculine versus feminine women.
Another studies pointed to the tendency of homosexual men to
prefer masculine men more than heterosexual women, and
homosexual women prefer feminine women more than do
heterosexual men (Child et al., 1996; Lippa, 2007). The tendency of
homosexual men to prefer masculinity in male faces proved also
Glassenberg et al. (2010) together with the finding that homosexual
women demonstrated stronger preferences for masculinity in female
faces than did heterosexual women. Gender studies focusing on the
attractiveness of the face taking into account not just the sex but
gender as a set of roles and behavior usually concentrate on the
gender of the object. E. g. Zucker et al. (1993) found that young
boys with gender identity disorder were judged by normals to be
more attractive than were the clinical controls boys. In contrary,
analogical research on girls showed that girls with gender identity
disorder were judged less attractive than the clinical controls (Fridell
& Zucker, 1996). Within these means, gender of the observer and its
influence on the face attractiveness preference has not been deeply
studied, yet.
2. PROBLEM
It seems that masculinity (in male face) and femininity (in female
face) increase the attractiveness of the face for the observer. On the
other hand, there are differences in how the female and male face is
perceived and how strong the influence of sexual dimorphism on the
attractiveness is. We assume that analysis of the sex, gender, and
mating preferences of the observer can bring the explanations for the
similarities/ differences in human face attractiveness perception.
3. PROCEDURE AND METHODS
Participants enrolled the research on a voluntary basis. Before the
data collection they were informed on the area of research and they
continued only after the oral consent. All participants were adults.
They filled out a battery of questionnaires, tests and sets of
questions and tasks among which they rated the attractiveness of
human faces and answered various questions. From 425 batteries,
twelve were excluded from further analysis due to incomplete
answers. During the filling in of questionnaires the measures of
fingers on hands were taken. All relevant data were statistically
evaluated by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
Software, version 16.
3. 1 Sex
One of the tasks within the battery was to choose the sex of the
participant. Subjects were asked to choose from two categories – a
man or a woman.
3. 2 Brain dimorphism
2D:4D represents the length of the index (second) finger divided by
the length of the ring (fourth) finger. This ratio is used as a
substitution for the measurement of the amount of prenatal
androgens exposure (Manning et al., 2014). The high prenatal levels
of androgens refer to low values (male type) of 2D:4D and high
values refer to female type of development. Contemporary
anthropological, medical, and psychological (Manning, 2002)
studies have found connections between 2D:4D and various somatic
(Muller et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2013; Garcia-Cruz, et al., 2012) and
psychological characteristics (Kilduff et al., 2013; Burton,
Guterman, & Baum, 2013; Garbarino, Slonim, & Sydnor, 2011),
too. Basically, the 2D:4D ratio represents the amount of
masculinisation of the brain, however, instead of rough division into
binominal categories man-woman it measures the amount of
masculinity/femininity on a scale. Lower values of the 2D:4D
variable refer to more masculine brain development while bigger
values of 2D:4D point to a feminine brain development. Although
extreme low 2D:4D values are usually present in males and high
2D:4D in females (Manning, 2002), measurement of subtle
differences mainly in mid values enables to assign the subject into
the right value of brain masculinisation regardless the visible
biological sex (male vs. female). In these means we use 2D:4D as an
expression of the “sex of the brain”.
2D:4D is commonly measured as the length from the midpoint of
bottom crease (where the finger joins the hand) to the tip of the
fingers (Demuthova, 2016). As there are not clear outcomes from
researches whether to prefer right hand or left hand for the
measurement (Hönekopp, 2010; Stoyanov, Marinov, & Pashalieva,
2009) or both (van der Meij et al., 2012) and that basically both of
them refer to the amount of prenatal androgen exposure (Manning,
2002), we took a measure individually from both – the right and the
left hand and used their average value. Also, there are several ways
of taking the measure – by the x-ray of hands (Xi et al., 2014), by
the photocopies (Burriss, Little, & Nelson, 2005), or by the
ruller/vernier calliper. We preferred the direct measurement by the
vernier calliper with the resolution of 0,05 millimetre.
3. 3 Mating preferences
On other place of the test battery, subjects were presented the
statement: “From my experience I know, that I like:
males/females/members of both sexes/I am not sure as my partners.
From their answers we gained four possible types of mating
preferences and labelled participants as heterosexuals (preference of
the subjects of the opposite sex), homosexuals (preference of the
subjects of the same sex), bisexuals (preference of the subjects of
both sexes), and uncertain (from answers “I am not sure”).
3. 4 Attractiveness of masculinity/femininity of faces
For the face attractiveness assessment based on masculinity/
femininity perception we used face composites from the study of
Little, Jones, & DeBruine (2011). Two male and two female
composites showed faces manipulated in facial masculinity and
femininity according to findings which face features correspond
with high masculinity and femininity in faces. Subject, that
evaluated the faces according to their attractiveness were blind to
the fact faces represent two different levels of masculinity/
femininity. Also, the face composites alter in the order at which the
face with low and face with the high masculinity/femininity was
presented for the evaluation of attractiveness. Face composites are
shown at the Picture 1.
11
GRANT journal
ISSN 1805-062X, 1805-0638 (online), ETTN 072-11-00002-09-4
EUROPEAN GRANT PROJECTS | RESULTS | RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE
Picture 1. Face composites manipulated in facial masculinity and
femininity. Faces marked a) refer to masculinizated faces, b) to
feminizated faces (source: Little, Jones, & DeBruine, 2011).
4. SUBJECTS
Subjects were 413 participants, from which 280 (67,8%) were
female. The mean age of the sample was 21,41 years
(St.dev.=6,111; median=20 with minimum 18 and maximum 67
years of age) and the sample was not distributed normally within
this category (sig. in Kolmogorov-Smirnov test=0,000,
skewness=4,588; kurtosis=25,588). All participants declared their
belonging to European race. Values of 2D:4D ratio were distributed
close to normal distribution within the sample (sig. in Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test=0,190; skewness=0,144; kurtosis= 1,016) with the
mean value=0,99337 (minimum=0,863; maximum=1,149). 93,2%
of the sample (N=385) declared to be heterosexuals, 3,9% (N=16)
homosexuals, 1,7% (N=7) bisexuals and 1,2% (N=5) were not sure
about their sexual orientation.
5. RESULTS
5. 1 Sex
First part of analysis concentrated on sex differences in the
preference of masculine/feminine features in the attractiveness of
the female face. Table 1 shows, that there are no significant
differences (sig.=0,349) in the preference between males and
females.
This result is supported by the outcomes of Chi-Square test showing
the existence of significant differences (Asymp. Sig.=0,000; chi-
square value=122,579) between the preference of feminine female
faces and preference of masculine female faces in whole sample in
the task of assigning the most attractive face.
Table 1. Independent Chi-Square for sex and attractiveness of
female face
Face asigned as the most attractive
Sex
Masculine
Feminine
Total
Men
34
99
133
Women 60 220 280
Total 94 319 413
Cramer´s V
0,05
Approx. Sig.
0,35
Similar results have been gained from the assessment of
attractiveness of the male face – there are no significant differences
(sig.=0,627) in the preference between males and females (Table 2).
However, from the frequencies of the choices it is obvious, that
there is no significant preference for the choice of feminine of
masculine male face when subject rated the face according to
attractiveness. It therefore seems, tat men and women do not
consider masculine male face as more attractive than the feminine
one. This result is statistically significant; the value of chi-square for
the equality of distributions of choices for masculine and for
feminine faces was 0,061 with the value of sig.=0,806.
Table 2. Independent Chi-Square for sex and attractiveness of male
face
Face asigned as the most attractive
Sex Masculine Feminine Total
Men 65 68 133
Women
144
136
280
Total
209
204
413
Cramer´s V
-0,24
Approx. Sig.
0,63
5. 2 Brain dimorphism
This variable represents the amount of the masculinisation of the
subject´s brain. Low values of 2D:4D point to masculine
development while higher values to more feminine structure and
functioning of the brain. Because a simple dichotomous variable
“sex” does not always correspond with gender and other
characteristics based on the dimorphic development of the
individual, 2D:4D can be possibly more distinctive.
Subjects who consider feminine female faces as more attractive do
not differ in 2D:4D from the subjects who consider masculine
female face as prettier (Table 3). Those who preferred masculine
face had slighter lower values of 2D:4D (more masculine), but
Student´s t-test for two independent samples proved, that these
differences are not significant.
Table 3. Differences in 2D:4D between subjects preferring
masculine and preferring feminine female faces
Face assigned as
the most attractive N Mean St. Dev. SE Mean
Masculine 94 0,99202 0,03198 0,00329
Feminine
319
0,99376
0,03625
0,00203
t
-0,421
Sig. (2-tailed)
0,674
In male face attractiveness assessment there are no differences in
2D:4D between subjects who assigned masculine and feminine male
face as the prettiest (see Table 4). It seems that the brain
dimorphism does not have as strong connection with the face
attractiveness assessment when its masculinity of femininity is taken
into account.
12
GRANT journal
ISSN 1805-062X, 1805-0638 (online), ETTN 072-11-00002-09-4
EUROPEAN GRANT PROJECTS | RESULTS | RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE
Table 4. Differences in 2D:4D between subjects preferring
masculine and preferring feminine female faces
Face assigned as
the most attractive N Mean St. Dev. SE
Mean
Masculine
209
0,99436
0,03286
0,00227
Feminine 204 0,99235 0,03768 0,00264
t 0,580
Sig. (2-tailed)
0,562
5. 3 Mating preferences
Mating preferences turn the attention of an individual towards
sexual partners. Therefore it is possible that people who see e.g.
males as possible sexual partners will judge the male face
attractiveness differently as those who´s potential sexual partners are
females. Results from the comparison of the frequencies have
limited consequences due to very small number of participants in
categories of homo/bisexuals and uncertain vs. heterosexuals.
From previous researches as well as from our partial results it is
obvious, that the analysis of the human face attractiveness needs to
be executed separately for the sex of the observed face as well as of
the observer. Table 5 presents the variance of the choices for the
female face composite in males and females separately.
Table 5 shows the tendencies of how people tend to evaluate the
attractiveness of the female face due to their sexual orientation.
Results show clear and significant preference for feminine female
face in heterosexual males and females.
Table 5. Chi-Square for the variances of the preference of
masculine and feminine female face in females and in males
Mating
preferences
in females
Female face assigned as the
most attractive
Chi-
Sq. Sig.
Masculine
Feminine
Total
Heterosexual
56
204
260
84,25
0,000
Homosexual 2 9 11 4,455 0,035
Bisexual 1 4 5 1,800 0,180
Uncertain
1
3
4
1,000
0,317
Total
60
220
280
Mating
preferences
in males
Female face assigned as the
most attractive
Chi-
Sq. Sig.
Masculine
Feminine
Total
Heterosexual 32 93 125 29,770 0,000
Homosexual
2
3
5
0,200
0,655
Bisexual
0
2
2
*
*
Uncertain
0
1
1
*
*
Total 34 99 133
Note: * Not enough cases. No statistics are computed.
Results considering other sexual orientations cannot be taken into
serious account as very small number of participants claimed to be
homosexuals, bisexuals, or uncertain in their sexual orientation.
Numbers in these cases point to a tendency to prefer feminine
female face regardless of sexual orientation in both sexes.
Table 6. Chi-Square for the variances of the preference of
masculine and feminine male face in females and in males
Mating
preferences
in females
Male face assigned as the most
attractive
Chi-
Sq. Sig.
Masculine
Feminine
Total
Heterosexual 136 124 260 0,554 0,457
Homosexual
4
7
11
0,818
0,366
Bisexual 2 3 5 0,200 0,655
Uncertain
2
2
4
0,000
1,000
Total 144 136 280
Mating
preferences
in males
Female face assigned as the
most attractive
Chi-
Sq. Sig.
Masculine
Feminine
Total
Heterosexual
61
64
125
0,072
0,788
Homosexual
3
2
5
0,200
0,655
Bisexual 1 1 2 0,000 1,000
Uncertain 0 1 1 * *
Total
65
68
133
Note: * Not enough cases. No statistics are computed.
The evaluation of male face attractiveness differs from the female
face. From the tables 5 and 6 it is obvious, that while the feminine
female face was the most attractive regardless sex, brain
dimorphism, and mating preferences for the vast majority of
participants, male face doesn’t show such preferences.
Heterosexual women slightly prefer masculine male faces in
contrast to homosexual and bisexual women who chose the feminine
male face more often. Heterosexual males see the feminine male
face as slightly more attractive as homosexuals who assigned
masculine male faces as the most attractive more frequently. Again,
the number of cases in non-heterosexual sample is too small for any
representative and reliable results. However, it can turn attention
towards possible directions for future research. Overall tendency
shows that there are no differences in attractiveness between
masculine and feminine male face in men, neither in women.
6. DISCUSSION
Results from 413 subject show, that there are no significant
connections of sex, brain dimorphism, or mating preferences with
the way how people evaluate the attractiveness of human face. Most
of these results (except variables of homosexual, bisexual, and
uncertain sexual orientation) are statistically significant. Therefore
we can assume, that the attractiveness of human face is not strongly
affected by the sex, sexual orientation, nor the fact how strongly has
been masculinised the brain of the observer.
Except this general finding, the study revealed interesting partial
results. In spite of the fact, that the preference of
masculinity/femininity of human face has not been different in male
and female observers, it differed between the male and female face
assessment. Males and females constantly assigned the feminine
female face as the prettiest. This result is in the concordance with
the theories that present the femininity as a sign of fertility
(Thornhill & Grammer, 1999) and “good genes” (Gangestad, 1993;
Scheib, Gangestad, & Thornhill, 1999), therefore the consideration
of female feminine face as pretty one is evolutionary effective
strategy. The connection of femininity and attractiveness of female
face has been proved also by many other studies (Cornwell et al,
2004; Little et al., 2014; O'Connor et al., 2013; etc.).
However, universal attitude towards female face femininity and
attractiveness is not applicable on the male face. If the same
explanation would be applied, we should expect the preference of
masculinity in the masculine male face. Except the physical fitness
and health (Rhodes et al., 2003), male masculinity is connected with
the dominance (Ahmetoglu and Swami, 2012) which brings higher
social status or with the aggressiveness (Little et al., 2015) enabling
better success in gaining resources. Therefore, preference of
masculinity in males and assessing it as attractive feature should be
an evolutionary advantageous strategy. Our results show, that men
as well as women do not prefer masculine male faces significantly
more than the feminine ones. The fact that males might not favour
masculine male face over the feminine is not surprising. There is no
13
GRANT journal
ISSN 1805-062X, 1805-0638 (online), ETTN 072-11-00002-09-4
EUROPEAN GRANT PROJECTS | RESULTS | RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE
evolutionary reason why men should find masculine male face more
attractive. However, according to connection of masculinity with
male “good genes”, women should strongly prefer these features,
which they did not. A possible explanation lies in the findings that
individuals use diverse reproductive strategies, rather than using a
single “best” strategy (Gross, 1996). Within this perspective, women
on one hand search for “good-looking” donors of dominant and
healthy genes (preference of masculine features), but on the other
hand, they also look for “good fathers” (Perrett et al., 1998) who are
faithful, caring, warmer, more agreeable and honest (feminine
features - Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). In the light of these
conflicting findings, it appears that „good genes“ theories of male
attractiveness preferences cannot completely account for female
judgments of male facial attractiveness (Penton-Voak et al., 2003).
Our results of non-existing preference of masculine male face in the
assessment of the attractiveness correspond with the findings of
Swami & Furnham (2008) and Little & Hancock (2002).
Few interesting tendencies have been revealed within the factors of
sexual orientation. Results are not reliable due to a small number of
participants, however it is possible that all non-heterosexual females
and males prefer feminine face composites (males and females, too)
except the homosexual males who consider masculine male face as
more attractive. This slight tendency is in concordance with the
findings of Child et al. (1996), Lippa (2007) and Glassenberg et al.
(2010). However, in this case the further researches with larger
samples has to be carried out.
References
1. Ahmetoglu, G. & Swami, V. (2012). Do women prefer "nice
guys"? The effect of male dominance behavior on women's
ratings of sexual attractiveness. Social Behavior & Personality:
An International Journal, 40(4), 667–672.
2. Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W.
(1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences
of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(5), 960–973.
3. Burris, R. P., Little, A. C., & Nelson, E. C. (2005). 2D:4D and
sexually dimorphic facial characteristics. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 36(3), 377–384.
4. Burton, L. A., Guterman, E., & Baum, G. (2013). Effect of
Prenatal Androgen on Adult Personality: Greater Openness
with More Female–Typical 2D:4D Digit Ratios. Current
Psychology, 32(2), 197–202.
5. Child, M., Low, K. G., McCormick, C. M., & Cocciarella, A.
(1996). Personal advertisements of male–to–female
transsexuals, homosexual men, and heterosexuals. Sex Roles,
34(5), 447–455.
6. Cornwell, E. R., Boothroyd, L., Burt, D. M., ... Perrett, D. I.
(2004). Concordant preferences for opposite–sex signals?
Human pheromones and facial characteristics. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences, 271(1539), 635–640.
7. Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical
attractiveness: Quasi–experiments on the sociobiology of
female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50(5), 925–935.
8. Cunningham M. R., Barbee A. P., & Pike C. L. (1990). What
do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives
in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 61–72.
9. Demuthova, S. (2007). Vybrané aspekty atraktivity a ich
biologické korene. [The selected aspects of the attractiveness
and their biological basics.] In H. Záškodná (Ed.) Afiliace
2006: sborník příspěvků. [Affiliation 2006: Collection of
Contributions. Ceske Budejovice: Jihoceska univerzita, pp. 1–
3.
10. Demuthova, S. (2016). 2D:4D as an alternative measure for
sex: Focus on aggression. Global Journal for Research
Analysis, 5(3), 5–6.
11. Dion, K. K. (2002). Cultural perspectives on facial
attractiveness. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial
attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social
perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex, pp. 239–260.
12. Ebner, N. C. (2008). Age of face matters: Age–group
differences in ratings of young and old faces. Behavior
Research Methods, 40 (1), 130–136.
13. Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. The science of
beauty. New York: Anchor Books.
14. Fink, B., Bunse, L., Matts, P. J., & D´Emiliano, D. (2012).
Visible skin colouration predicts perception of male facial age,
health and attractiveness. International Journal of Cosmetic
Science, 34(4), 307–310.
15. Fink, B. & Penton–Voak, I. S. (2002). Evolutionary
psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in
Psychological Sciencce, 11(5), 154–158.
16. Foos, P. W. & Clark, M. Ch. (2011). Adult Age and gender
differences in perceptions of facial attractiveness: Beauty is in
the eye of the older beholder. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
172(2), 162–175.
17. Foster, J. D. (2008). Beauty is mostly in the eye of the
beholder: Olfactory versus visual cues of attractiveness.
Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), p765774.
18. Fridell, S. R. & Zucker, K. J. (1996). Physical attractiveness of
girls with gender identity disorder. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 25(1), 17–33.
19. Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical
attractiveness: Implications for mating dynamics. Human
Nature, 4(3), 205–235.
20. Garbarino, E., Slonim, R., & Sydnor, J. (2011). Digit ratios
(2D:4D) AS predictors of risky decision making for both sexes.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainity, 42(1), 1–26.
21. Garcia–Cruz, E., Huguet, J., Piqueras, M., ... Alcaraz, A.
(2012). Second to fourth digit ratio, adult testosterone level and
testosterone deficiency. BJU International, 19(2), 266–271.
22. Glassenberg, A., Feinberg, D., Jones, B. ... DeBruine, L.
(2010). Sex–dimorphic face shape preference in heterosexual
and homosexual men and women. Archives of sexual Behavior,
39(6),1289–1296.
23. Golle, J., Mast, F. W., and Lobmaier, J. S. (2014). Something
to smile about: The interrelationship between attractiveness and
emotional expression. Cognition and Emotion, 28 (2), 298–
310.
24. Grammer, K. & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens)
facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry
and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(3),
233–242.
25. Gross, M. R. (1996). Alternative reproductive strategies and
tactics: Diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 11(2), 92–98.
26. Hönekopp J. (2010). Meta–analysis of digit ratio 2D:4D shows
greater sex difference in the right hand. American Journal Of
Human Biology: The Official Journal Of The Human Biology
Council, 22(5), 619–630.
27. Jones, D. & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in
five populations. Human Nature, 4(3), 271–296.
28. Kilduff, L. P., Hopp, R. N., & Cook, Ch. J. (2013). Digit ratio
(2D:4D), aggression, and testosterone in men exposed to an
aggressive video stimulus. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(5),
953–964.
29. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Musselman, L. (1994).
What is average and what is not average about attractive faces.
Psychological Science, 5(4), 214–220.
14
GRANT journal
ISSN 1805-062X, 1805-0638 (online), ETTN 072-11-00002-09-4
EUROPEAN GRANT PROJECTS | RESULTS | RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE
30. Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross–
national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and
women: An examination of biological and cultural influences.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(2), 193–208.
31. Little, A. C. & Hancock, P. J. B. (2002). The role of
masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male
facial attractiveness. British Journal of Psychology, 93(Pt 4),
451–464.
32. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial
attractiveness: evolutionary based research. In Anthony C.
Little, Benedict C. Jones & Lisa M. DeBruine (Eds.), Face
perception: social, neuropsychological and comparative
perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B. Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1633–1777.
33. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., and Perrett, D. I.
(2014). Men´s strategic preferences for femininity in female
faces. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 364–381.
34. Little, A. C., Trebicky, V., Havlicek, J., … Kleisner, K. (2015).
Human perception of fighting ability: Facial cues predict
winners and losers in mixed martial arts fights. Behavioral
Ecology, 26(6), 1470–1475.
35. Lucker, G. W., Beane, W. E., & Guire, K. (1981). The
idiographic approach to physical attractiveness research. The
Journal of Psychology, 107(1), 57–67.
36. Manning, J. T. (2002). Digit ratio. A pointer to fertility,
behavior, and health. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers
University Press.
37. Manning, J. T., Kilduff, L., Cook, Ch., ... Fing, B. (2014). Digit
Ratio (2D:4D): A Biomarker for Prenatal Sex Steroids and
Adult Sex Steroids in Challenge Situations. Frontiers in
Endocrinology, 5(9), 1–5.
38. McConnell, L. K., Lee, W. W., Black, D. W., & Shriver, E. M.
(2015). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: body dysmorphic
disorder in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.
Ophthalmic Plastic And Reconstructive, 31(1), e3–6.
39. Mealey, L. Bridgstock, R., & Townsend, G. C. (1999).
Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: A monozygotic
co–twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(1), 151–158.
40. Mitteroecker, P., Windhager, S., Müller, G. B. & Schaefer, K.
(2015). The Morphometrics of “Masculinity” in Human Faces.
PLoS ONE, 10(2), 1–13.
41. Morrison, E. R., Clark, A. P., Tiddeman, B. P., & Penton–
Voak, I. S. (2010). Manipulating shape cues in dynamic human
faces: Sexual Dimorphism is preferred in female but not male
faces. Ethology, 116(), 1234–1243.
42. Muller, D. C., Giles, G. G., Bassett, J., ... Severi, G. (2011).
Second to Fourth Digit Ratio (2D:4D) and Concentrations of
Circulating Sex Hormones in Adulthood. Reproductive Biology
and Endocrinology, 9(1), 57–68.
43. O'Connor, J. J. M., Fraccaro, P. J., Pisanski, K., ... Feinberg, D.
R. (2013). Men's preferences for women's femininity in
dynamic cross–modal stimuli. PLoS ONE, 8(7), 1–7.
44. O'Doherty, J. ,Winston, J., Critchley, H., ... Dolan, R. J. (2003).
Beauty in a smile: the role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in
facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 41(2), 147–156.
45. Owens, I. P. & Short, R. V.(1995). Hormonal basis of sexual
dimorphism in birds: implications for new theories of sexual
selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10(1), 44–47.
46. Penton–Voak, I. & Perrett, D. I. (2000). Consistency and
individual differences in facial attractiveness judgements: An
evolutionary perspective. Social Research, 67(1), 219–244.
47. Penton–Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C. ... Perrett, D. I.
(2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual
dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal
of Comparative Psychology, 117(3), 264–271.
48. Perret, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton–Voak, I. S., ... Edwards, R.
(1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 20(5), 295–307.
49. Perrett D. I., Lee K. J., Penton–Voak, I. S., ... Akamatsu, S.
(1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.
Nature 394, 884–887.
50. Rhodes, G., Chan, J., Zebrowitz, L. A., & Simmons, L. (2003).
Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health?
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences Journal, 266(1431), 2089–2093
51. Rhodes, G., Hickford, C., & Jeffrey, L. 2000. Sex–typicallity
and attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super–
attractive? British Journal of Psychology, 91(Pt 1), 125–140.
52. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., ... McKay, R. (2001).
Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution
and Human Behavior, 22(1), 31–46.
53. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial
attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences Journal,
266(1431), 1913–1917.
54. Scott, I. M. L., Pound, N., Stephen, I. D., ... Penton–Voak, I. S.
(2010). Does masculinity matter? The contribution of
masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. PLoS
ONE, 5(10), e13585.
55. Smith, D., Jones, B., & Allan, K. (2013). Socio-sexuality and
episodic memory function in women: further evidence of an
adaptive 'mating mode. Memory & Cognition, 41(6), 850–861.
56. Stoyanov, Z., Marinov, M., & Pashalieva, I. (2009). Finger
length ratio (2d:4d) in left– and right–handed males.
International Journal of Neuroscience, 119(7), 1006–1013.
57. Sun, D., Chan, Ch. C. H., Fan, J., ... Lee, T. M. C. (2015). Are
happy faces attractive? The roles of early vs. late processing.
Frontiers in Psychology, 30( 6), e1812.
58. Swaddle, J. P. & Reierson, G. W. (2003). Testosterone
increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human
males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences Journal, 269(1507), 2285–2289.
59. Swami, I. & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of physical
attraction. London and New York: Routlege.
60. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness.
Trends in cognitive science, 3, 452–460.
61. Thornhill, R. & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of a
woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and
Human Behavior, 20(2), 105–120.
62. van der Meij, L., Almela, M., Buunk, A. P., ... Salvador, A.
(2012). 2 D:4 D in men is related to aggressive dominance but
not to sociable dominance. Aggressive Behavior, 38(3), 208–
212.
63. Xi, H., Li, M., Fan, Y., & Zhao, L. (2014). A comparison
of measurement methods and sexual dimorphism for digit ratio
(2D:4D) in Han ethnicity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(2),
329–333.
64. Zaidel, D. W. and Hessamian, M. (2010). Asymmetry and
symmetry in the beauty of human faces. Symmetry, 2(1), 136–
149.
65. Zhao, D., Yu, K., Zhang X., & Zheng, L. (2013). Digit ratio
(2D:4D) and handgrip strength in hani ethnicity. PLoS ONE,
8(10), 1–5.
66. Zucker, K. J., Wild, J., Bradley, S. J., & Lowry, C. B. (1993).
Physical attractiveness of boys with gender identity disorder.
Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 22(1), 23–36.
15
