Have you ever wondered why some faces just seem to pop with beauty while others do not quite hit the mark? At first glance, attractiveness feels like a deeply personal and subjective experience, varying wildly from one person to another. However, as I delved deeper into the fascinating world of facial symmetry, I discovered that our preferences might be less about individual tastes and more about ingrained biological signals. This exploration reveals that while beauty standards dance to the tune of cultural influences, there is a compelling biological rhythm that often takes centre stage.
Traditionally, beauty has been seen as a cultural construct, a moving target shaped by societal norms and historical contexts. For example, the varying beauty standards across the globe: the slender elegance prized in many Western societies contrasts sharply with the voluptuous figures celebrated in parts of Latin America. Similarly, what one culture considers the epitome of facial beauty might be entirely different in another. However, this cultural kaleidoscope does not paint the whole picture. Intriguingly, research shows that even infants, barely two months old, exhibit preferences for faces that adults deem attractive. This early bias hints at universal standards of beauty that transcend cultural boundaries, suggesting a biological foundation.
One of the cornerstone theories in this domain is the concept of averageness. In 1990, Langlois and Roggman pioneered research demonstrating that composite faces—created by averaging multiple individual faces—are consistently rated as more attractive than their constituent parts. This preference for averageness might not just be about blending features harmoniously; it could signal genetic robustness and health. Subsequent studies by Rhodes, Sumich, and Zebrowitz in 2005 expanded on this, revealing that average faces are perceived as healthier and more trustworthy, traits that undoubtedly play a role in social cohesion and mate selection.
But what really grabbed my attention was the role of facial symmetry. Evolutionary biologists argue that symmetry is a crucial indicator of health and genetic quality. The logic is straightforward: maintaining symmetry in the face requires a robust genetic makeup capable of withstanding environmental and genetic stressors. In 2001, a seminal study by Rhodes and his colleagues found that individuals with more symmetrical faces were consistently rated as more attractive across diverse participant groups. This finding was further supported by Thaker et al. in 2008, who linked facial symmetry to perceived health and youthfulness—attributes that are undoubtedly advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint.
However, the plot thickens when we consider the nuances of symmetry. Not all symmetry is created equal. Some studies, like the one conducted by Hönekopp and Asendorpf in 2002, suggest that perfectly symmetrical faces might actually be less attractive than their slightly asymmetrical counterparts. Their research indicated that moderate asymmetry could make faces appear more natural and relatable, as perfect symmetry might come off as artificial or even eerie. This raises the question: Is there such a thing as too much symmetry?
Rhodes and his team tackled this conundrum by refining their methodology. In 2003, they developed a technique that blended normal and mirror images of individual faces to create perfectly symmetrical versions without the structural distortions typically seen in chimeric faces. Their experiments consistently showed that enhancing facial symmetry through blending indeed increased attractiveness, while reducing symmetry had the opposite effect. This breakthrough provided robust evidence that facial symmetry does contribute to perceived attractiveness, free from the artefacts that plagued earlier studies.
Delving into mate choice, the research uncovered some intriguing gender differences. Participants consistently preferred more symmetrical faces when evaluating potential life partners, with this preference being notably stronger in males than in females. Penton-Voak and Chen’s 2004 study echoed these findings, suggesting that men might prioritise facial symmetry more heavily due to evolutionary pressures favouring genetically superior partners. However, this observation adds a twist to the parental investment theory, which posits that females should be more selective due to their greater investment in offspring. It hints at a more complex interplay of evolutionary strategies and social conditioning influencing attractiveness standards.
The evolutionary narrative of symmetry preference suggests that symmetrical faces are honest signals of good genes and overall health. Møller’s 2000 hypothesis posits that facial symmetry reflects developmental stability and resistance to environmental and genetic stressors, making it a valuable trait for mate selection. However, alternative theories propose that the preference for symmetry might not be directly tied to mate quality. For instance, a “feed-forward” mechanism could perpetuate both symmetry and the preference for it without a direct fitness advantage. Alternatively, our sensitivity to symmetrical patterns might have evolved for cognitive reasons unrelated to mate selection, such as improved object recognition or scene analysis, subsequently influencing our aesthetic preferences.
Supporting this biological standpoint, Thornhill and Gangestad in 1999 found a correlation between facial symmetry and immune system strength, reinforcing the idea that symmetry signals good health. Jones, DeBruine, and Penton-Voak’s 2009 study further demonstrated that individuals with more symmetrical faces are perceived as more trustworthy and competent, traits that are advantageous in both personal and professional realms. Conversely, Rosenberg, Gangestad, and Thornhill in 2009 highlighted that extreme symmetry could detract from attractiveness, supporting the notion that slight imperfections enhance perceived naturalness and individuality.
Curious to put this theory to the test, I decided to check the symmetry of my own face. After all, why not? If facial symmetry plays such an important role in attractiveness, it seemed like a fun experiment to see where I stood. Using a free online tool at Face Symmetry Test, I uploaded a photo of myself and let the algorithm do its magic. The results? Well, let’s just say I now have a deeper appreciation for the importance of symmetry in the world of beauty. You can see the visual proof of my face symmetry (or lack thereof!) in the picture below!
Now, back to the science. While I may not be the next model for symmetry perfection, the broader point remains: symmetry is deeply rooted in our perception of attractiveness. Whether cultural, biological, or a combination of both, it shapes how we see each other, and often, ourselves.
Ultimately, while attractiveness might initially seem like a subjective and culturally driven concept, the persistent preference for facial symmetry across diverse populations underscores the significant role of biological factors in shaping our perceptions of beauty. Facial symmetry not only enhances perceived attractiveness but also serves as a potential signal of good genes and overall health. This intricate setting between biology and culture reveals the profound ways in which our evolutionary heritage influences the seemingly personal judgments we make about beauty. As research continues to bridge the gap between subjective experiences and objective biological determinants, we edge closer to unraveling the timeless mystery of what truly makes a face beautiful.
References
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-49.
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2009). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(6), 348-354.
Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1(2), 115-121.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (1994). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429-459.
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1638-1659.
Møller, A. P. (2000). Symmetry, sexual selection and disease. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 267(1456), 1237-1245.
Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., & Schluter, P. J. (2001). Objectively assessed symmetry and attractiveness in male facial images. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268(1467), 1611-1616.
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. (2004). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(5), 205-210.
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Zebrowitz, L. (2003). Facial symmetry: a test of a mid-life wisdom. Psychological Science, 14(1), 12-18.
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., Little, A. C., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2005). Facial symmetry and human facial attractiveness: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 225-249.
Rosenberg, M. L., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2009). Effects of manipulated facial symmetry on attractiveness in men and women. Human Nature, 20(2), 161-177.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 452-460.
Thaker, G., Sulliván, J. P., Wallace, J., Cornelissen, P., Boell, R., Freeman, L., & Hu, J. (2008). Facial symmetry, but not sexual dimorphism, is a reliable cue of sperm quality in men. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1649), 1325-1331.
Hönekopp, J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2002). Symmetry and sexual dimorphism in faces are not related to health. Human Nature, 13(1), 1-20.
Perrett, D. I., Oram, M. W., Burt, D. M., Scott, G., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., & Kimura, D. (1998). Symmetry and beauty in male facial images. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265(1399), 1279-1284.
