Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship

By B. Jones, Anthony C. Little, Ian Penton-Voak, Bernard Paul Tiddeman, D. Burt, David I. Perrett. 2001

359 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6da886f16fe4bc5a19417ad025ee6c886b6186ea

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. B. Jones
2. David Feinberg
3. Anthony C. Little
4. Gillian Rhodes
5. Susan C. Roberts
6. Ian Penton-Voak
7. David I. Perrett
8. Marianne Peters

In Marketing

1. B. Jones
2. David Feinberg
3. Anthony C. Little
4. Gillian Rhodes
5. Ian Penton-Voak
6. David I. Perrett
7. Susan C. Roberts
8. Steven A. Arnocky

Citations in the corpus

• Cosmetics: They Influence More Than Caucasian Female Facial Attractiveness (2006, background): “Interestingly, symmetrical faces are also judged to be healthier than less symmetrical faces (Jones et al., 2001).”
• Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior (2014, background): “Following exposure to one of these two conditions, participants rated their preference for male facial symmetry, which is considered to be a visible cue to genetic quality and health (GANGESTAD and SIMPSON 2000; JONES et al. 2001; THORNHILL and GANGESTAD 2006).”
• MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness (2005, background): “Our results are consistent with previous studies that find a correlation between perceived health and facial attractiveness (Cunningham, 1986; Jones et al., 2001; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999).”
• The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. (2006, background): “One study has attempted to rule out a halo account by showing that symmetry looks healthy when attractiveness is statistically controlled, but it’s not clear how this association reflects mechanisms for assessing attractiveness (Jones et al. 2001).”
• Are human preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability (2004, background): “…meta-analysis suggests a weak effect size of general facial attractiveness on mental (0.16, 95% CI ¼ 0.09/0.23 from 19 studies) and physical health (0.38, 0.24/0.53 from five studies; Langlois et al., 2000), and facial asymmetry is perceived as healthy (Jones et al., 2001; Rhodes et al., 2001).”
• Disgust: evolved function and structure. (2013, background): “Many such dimensions will be used to assess the quality of potential mates for both males and females (B. C. Jones et al., 2001; Thornhill & Gangestad, 2006; Zebrowitz & Rhodes, 2004).”
• The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness (2004, background): “…of facial attractiveness using real faces have reported positive relationships between symmetry and attractiveness (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Jones et al., 2001; Mealey, Bridgestock, & Townsend, 1999; Penton-Voak et al., 2001; Rhodes et al., 1999; Rhodes, Yoshikawa, et al., 2001; Scheib,…”
• Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality (2006, background): “Besides evidence from studies providing support for the notion that facial symmetry is associated with attractiveness and health judgements (e.g., Jones et al., 2001; Perrett et al., 1999; Rhodes et al., 2001b) is has also been suggested that symmetry may simply covary with features that indicate…”