This study will only look at two (of many) facial characteristics being symmetry and sexual dimorphism. It will also take a deeper look at female perceptions of these characteristics in relation to social competence. Thus, our hypothesis is that females w

Introduction

Hatfied and Sperecher once wrote that “people believe good looking people possess almost all the virtues known to mankind”. This depicts the link between the existence of a stereotype whereby physically attractive people are believed to possess a variety of personal qualities. The vast research in this area has elevated the theory of ‘What is beautiful is good’ as well as linking these “good” personality traits to life outcomes such as marital happiness and career success (Eagly et al., 1991). Perceived attractiveness enlists the benefits of the ‘halo’ effect (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972) and also activates the “what is good stereotype”. However, it has been argued that this relationship is not just stereotypical. There appears to be a strong reciprocal relationship between attractiveness and skill such that attractive individuals possess better social skills than less attractive people (Chaiken, 1979).

An experimental paradigm introduced by Dion et al (1972) suggested that the beauty is good effect was strongest for measures of social competence and interpersonal ease. Social competence in this case was concerned with interpersonal skills and traits such as extraversion which is concerned with sociability. In two meta-analysis reviews (Eagly et al, 1991; Feingold, 1992) of what is beautiful is good hypothesis results were consistent. Physical attractiveness had its strongest impact on social competence yet little effect on integrity and concern for others (Eagly et al., 1991). Physically attractive people from both genders were also perceived as more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy and socially skilled (Feingold, 1992). Yet on the flip side of this research it has been found that a desire for some personality traits influences judgements of facial attractiveness, calling it “What is good is beautiful” hypotheses. The desires of and individual reflects their views of what is ‘good’ and in turn find faces of reflecting these desired traits attractive (Little et al., 2006).

Moreover as this study is concerned with female perceptions of attractiveness and social competence in males it is important to note the findings that exist. Research has found that women’s perceptions of men’s faces track actual characteristics of men that are theoretically important for mate choice (Roney et al., 2006). Although masculine features might signal male intrasexual competitive ability, they do not signal all traits valued in a male mate. Women rate men higher with faces that posses certain characteristics as more cooperative and honest and as good parents (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). In the interest of this study two facial characteristics will be discussed which have been continuously related to attractiveness; symmetry and sexual dimorphism.

Facial symmetry is one aspect that has been extensively studied by many researchers in relation to attractiveness. Studies have reported a preference for symmetrical faces in facial attractiveness judgements of both male and female faces (Koehler, Rhodes & Simmons, 2002; Perrett et al., 1999). Equally, others have stated that the effect of facial symmetry is not an essential cause of attractiveness (Rubenstein, Langlois & Roggman, 2002).

However a theory of apparent health was developed, indicating that the relationship between facial symmetry and attractiveness was arbitrated by perceived health (Jones, Little, Penton-Voak, Tiddeman, Burt & Perret, 2001). Research has also offered an explanation of which the apparent health of symmetric faces could in fact reflect an “attractiveness halo” where positive characteristics such as extraversion, stability and good health are credited to good looking symmetrical individuals (Penton-Voak et al., 2001). Symmetrical individuals of both genders are reported to have greater emotional and psychological health and also better physiological health was found in symmetrical men than their asymmetrical counterparts (Manning, 1995). Although symmetry was also found to act as marker of phenotypic and genetic quality and also preferred during mate selection, studies have found that manipulation of human faces report a preference for asymmetry (Perrett et al., 1999). This also offers an explanation to the findings of Little et al (2007), which provided evidence that preference for women for symmetry in male faces varies in relation to their menstrual cycle phase. Women at high conception risk preferred more symmetric faces than those at low conception risk. A possibility arises here that some women may choose a long term partner whose asymmetric appearance suggests co-operation and extended paternal care. Similarly these findings are also related to cyclic preferences for facial masculinity (Penton-Voak et al., 1999).

Testosterone has been shown to affect a number of facial features that determine perceived masculinity (lateral growth of the cheekbones, jawbone and chin). Much has been written on facial attractiveness and masculinity and femininity. In support of the above research, Berry and Wero (1993) found feminised faces were perceived to promise willingness to invest exclusively in a mate. Conversely, studies have shown female preference for masculine traits in male faces is equivocal. In a study by Cunningham, Barbee & Pike (1990) ratings of attractiveness were found to positively correlate with masculinity.

Perret et al., (1998) investigated the effects of manipulating ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Perret et al., (1998) investigated the effects of manipulating the masculinity-femininity of male and female faces on judgements of their attractiveness. Interestingly, results demonstrated that both male and female participants preferred the feminised face to the masculinised face. However, this speculation is not consistent as other studies have found that women find masculine faces more attractive (Johnston et al., 2001) or that women neither prefer masculinised nor feminised faces over average faces (Swaddle & Reirson, 2002).

From the literature presented it is clear that a range of evidence exists in the context of facial attractiveness and social competence. Nonetheless, it is also clear that in the context of the above the results are not all confounding in relation to certain facial characteristics. This study will only look at two (of many) facial characteristics being symmetry and sexual dimorphism. It will also take a deeper look at female perceptions of these characteristics in relation to social competence. Thus, our hypothesis is that females will perceive male faces that are more symmetrical and feminised as being more socially competent.

Method

Design

A within participant design was used to examine the relationship between facial symmetry and sexual facial features for perceived social competence.

Participants

An opportunity sample of 55 females was recruited from . The participants mean age was 24.7.

Materials

A white male face was manipulated digitally by professional photographic software called: Photoshop. This was used to create four different faces concerning the different facial features of our two IV: facial symmetry and sexual facial features.

1. Symmetrical/Masculine 2. Asymmetric/Masculine 3. Symmetrical/Feminine 4.Asymmetric/Feminine

The symmetrical effect was created by turning a vertical half face (left hand side) and rearranging it over the right hand side. In accordance with previous studies (Perret et al, 1998) the nose, eyebrows and jaw were manipulated to present more masculine (larger features) or feminine (smaller features).

Participants were asked to rate each face in terms of perceived social competence. For the purpose of this study social competence was represented by four traits. These were unsociable/sociable, unfriendly/friendly, unpopular/popular and introverted/extraverted. These were rated by a 0-6 scale with higher scores meaning higher social competence. The possible total scores ranged from 0-24.

Procedure

After accessing the website , participants were directed to . Here, participants were asked to complete a consent form by signing their name and providing their date of birth. Participants were then instructed to complete the survey. After 24 hours the survey was closed. The averages for each participant were used to calculate the score for social competence.

Results

Table 1 demonstrates a summary of the data collected. The mean score for masculine/asymmetrical faces was 3.66, which was lower than the mean for feminine/asymmetrical faces at 3.98. Similarly, the feminine/symmetrical faces showed a mean of 3.57 which is higher than the mean for masculine/symmetrical faces at 3.41.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for facial symmetry and sexual facial features in perception of social competence

A 2 (Symmetry: Symmetrical and Asymmetrical) x2 (Sexual Facial Features: Masculinity and Femininity) factorial ANOVA was performed on the data. There was a significant main effect for symmetrical and asymmetrical facial features (F (1, 54) = 4.47, p=.039). There was also a significant main effect for masculine and feminine faces (F (1, 54) = 5.89, p=.001). However, there was no significant interaction for facial symmetry and sexual dimorphism (F (1, 54) = .368, p=.37).

These results indicate that individuals with feminine features are seen as more socially competent than those with masculine features. Also individuals with asymmetrical feature are seen as more socially competent than those with symmetrical facial features.

Discussion

Overall, the results are not equivocal with earlier studies of female preference for facial symmetry and sexual facial features in males. Firstly, results of female preference for asymmetric male faces are not consistent with the majority of literature (Penton-Voak et al, 2001). Secondly, results also indicated that female preference for more feminised male faces supports the previous literature (Perrett et al, 1998).

The most interesting finding of our results arises in the asymmetric preference of male faces even though vast evidence exists for preference of symmetrical faces. There are a number of possible reasons for this. Firstly, this study may support the findings of Perrett et al., (1999). It was suggested here the preference for symmetrical faces was due to the manipulation of human faces. These results may have reflected unnatural facial feature shape and changes in the individual skin textures due to image processing. In a similar vein, this can also be related to findings of Jones et al, (2001) which concluded that judgements of apparent health (such as clear skin) contribute more to the attractiveness-symmetry relationship than attractiveness contributes to the association between judgements of apparent health and facial symmetry. As the faces we used in our study were normal and manipulated for each of the four conditions, this could be an insight to our findings. Secondly, another reason may be due to women’s expectations and need of a partner. As Little et al (2007) stated there is a possibility that some women may choose a long term partner whose asymmetric appearance reflected traits such as co-operation and paternal care. Finally, contraception risk was also diagnosed as a factor for preference of asymmetric faces. In other words our female participants may have had a low contraception risk whilst participating in the survey.

The results largely support earlier studies that female preference is higher for feminised faces (Berry & Ero,1993: Perret et al., 1994). Feminised faces are perceived to promise willingness to invest exclusively in a long term relationship. The results here could be related to the possibility of searching for a long term partner; females may prefer a less masculinised face since more masculinised faces point to social dominance but an unwillingness to invest in a relationship. Positive personality traits were also found to be typically ascribed to feminised faces whereas masculine faces are seen to carry a cost. Perrett et al., (1998) described this cost as less likely to co operate and make worse parents. Again, the results correspond that women choose their mates for characteristics that are desirable to them. For example, in this study extraversion was a trait that had to rated, yet previous research has found that extraversion is positively associated with masculine features Little et al., (2006). This provides a valid reason for the results in this study as feminised faces were preferred; therefore extraversion and masculinity were less desirable.

It is also worth pointing out that no significant interaction was found between facial symmetry and sexual dimorphism. These results support the literature that femininity and facial symmetry influences perception of social competence regardless of each other. Fink et al, (2005) found the strongest association with facial symmetry was found for extraversion and openness. However these findings were gathered using the big 5 personality traits. In this study social competence was tested and extraversion was only a component of this which may explain the results of asymmetric preference for social competence. Similarly, femininity alone influences perception of social competence as found by Perret et al., (1999), where traits such as warmth and co-operation was found to be associated with feminised faces.

This study was not without its limitations; in particular the design lacked random assignment for participants viewing the four conditions of the male face. Therefore the selection processes of the faces may have been systematically favoured by the participants. Also the use of a normal asymmetric face that was manipulated to be perfectly symmetrical may have affected results. In accordance to the research, the use of a normal face that was subtly manipulated for the four conditions to be either less symmetrical or slightly more symmetrical (although not perfectly) may have been less influential on the present results (Perret et al., 1999). Finally, in regard to results of women’s preference changing during their cycle (Little et al, 2007), a future study would need to gather this information from participants.

These findings support findings that a desire for some personality traits such as warmth and good parenting skills influences judgements of facial attractiveness (Little et al, 2006). Instead of a vague characteristic of attractiveness being the reason for perceptions of personality and social competence, instead these traits elicited by a face can affect judgements of attractiveness. Valued or attractive traits may be casual in making a face attractive. Thus, facial attractiveness depicts “What is good is beautiful” reversing the logic of “What is beautiful is good”. These results support much of the literature that female perceive more attractive males as being more socially competent. Within this it is clear that facial symmetry and sexual dimorphism also play an unclear role of female perception of attractiveness. So it can be concluded that there is a great incentive for psychology to better understand the role of facial symmetry and sexual facial features in female perceptions of social competence.

References

Berry, D. S., & Wero, J.L.F. (1993). Accuracy in face perception: A view from ecological psychology. Journal of Personality, 61, 497-520.

Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,1387-1397.

Cunningham, M. R., Barbee. A.P. &Pike, C.L. (1990). What do Women want? Facialmetric analysisof multiple motives in the perception of male physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72.

Dion, K.K., Berscheid,E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.

Eagly, A.H., Ashmore, R.D., Makhijani, M.G., & Longo, L.C. (1991). What is beautiful is good...but: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

Feingold, A. (1992). Good looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304-341.

Johnston,V.S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: evidence for a hormone –mediated adaptive design .Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 251-267.

Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Penton-Voak, I.S., Tiddeman, B.P., Burt, D.M., &Perrett, D.I. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 417-429.

Koehler, N., Rhodes, G., Simmons, L.W. (2002). Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely? Animal Behavior, 64, 233-238.

Little, A.C., Jones, B.C., (2006). Attraction independent suggests special mechanism for symmetry preference in human face perception. Proceeding of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 273, 3093-3099.

Little, A.C., Jones, B.C., Burriss, R.P., (2007). Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 633-639.

Manning, J. T. (1995). Fluctuating asymmetry and body weight in men and women: implication for sexual selection. Ethology and Social Biology, 16, 145-153.

Penton-Voak, I.S., Perrett, D.I., Castles, D.L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D.M, Murray, L.K., Miamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face perception. Nature, 399, 741-742.

Penton-Voak, I.S., Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Baker, S.E., Tiddeman, B.P., Burt, D.M., & Perrett, D.I. (2001). Symmetry, Sexual Dimorphism in facial proportions and male sexual attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series, B, 268, 1617-1623.

Perrett, D.I., Lee, K.J., Penton-Voak, I.S.,Rowland, D.J., Yoshikiawa, S., Burt, D.M., Henzi, S.P., Castless, D.L., & Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884-887.

Perrett, D.I., Burt, D.M., Penton-Voak, I.S., Lee, K.J., Rowland, D.A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and Human facial attractiveness. Evolution of Human Behavior, 20, 295-307.

Roney, J.R., Hanson, K.N., Durante, K.M., Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men’s faces: women's male attractiveness judgements track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proc.R.Soc B, 273, 2169-2175.

Rubenstein, A.J., Langlojus, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: the role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes & L.A. Zebrowitz (Eds.). Advances in visual cognition, vol.1: facial attractiveness. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Swaddle, J.P., & Reierson, G.W. (2002). Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness of human males. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 2285-2289.

Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S.W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 452-460