Art & Photos

A New Viewpoint on the Evolution of Sexually Dimorphic Human Faces

Human faces show marked sexual shape dimorphism, and this affects their attractiveness. Humans also show marked height dimorphism, which means that men typically view women’s faces from slightly above and women typically view men’s faces from
of 13
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  Evolutionary Psychology – 2010. 8(4): 573-585 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Original Article A New Viewpoint on the Evolution of Sexually Dimorphic Human Faces Darren Burke, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, Australia. Email: (Corresponding author). Danielle Sulikowski, Department of Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Abstract:  Human faces show marked sexual shape dimorphism, and this affects their attractiveness. Humans also show marked height dimorphism, which means that men typically view women’s faces from slightly above and women typically view men’s faces from slightly below. We tested the idea that this perspective difference may be the evolutionary srcin of the face shape dimorphism by having males and females rate the masculinity/femininity and attractiveness of male and female faces that had been manipulated in pitch (forward or backward tilt), simulating viewing the face from slightly above or below. As predicted, tilting female faces upwards decreased their perceived femininity and attractiveness, whereas tilting them downwards increased their perceived femininity and attractiveness. Male faces tilted up were judged to be more masculine, and tilted down judged to be less masculine. This suggests that sexual selection may have embodied this viewpoint difference into the actual facial proportions of men and women. Keywords:  attractiveness, head tilt, sexual dimorphism ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  Introduction Human facial attractiveness has been extensively studied from an evolutionary perspective (Gangestad and Scheyd, 2005; Rhodes, 2006). Much of this research has concluded that facial features that increase attractiveness serve as cues of biologically important variables. In the case of female faces, there is good agreement, both across laboratories and across cultures, that attractiveness is increased by signs of youth (Jones, 1995), symmetry (Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, and Sumich, 1998; Thornhill and Gangestad, 1993) and averageness (Langois and Roggman, 1990) perhaps signaling health and femininity (Perrett, May, and Yoshikawa, 1994 - a proxy for fertility). Male attractiveness is generally increased by facial symmetry (Rhodes et al., 1998; Thornhill and Gangestad, 1993) and averageness (Langois and Roggman, 1990), but male masculinity does not  Sexually dimorphic human faces universally confer greater attractiveness. More masculine faces are rated as more attractive by females for short-term relationships (Penton-Voak, Little, Jones, and Burt, 2003), at peak fertility in the menstrual cycle (Penton-Voak, Perrett, Castles, Kobayashi, Burt, Murray, and Minamisawa, 1999), by those with high self-rated attractiveness (Little, Burt, Penton-Voak, and Perrett, 2001), and in environments in which males make little contribution to childrearing (Penton-Voak, Jacobson, and Trivers, 2004). An unanswered question is the evolutionary srcin of the sexually dimorphic structural differences (i.e., the masculinity and femininity of faces) that serve as attractiveness cues. Male faces are, on average, longer- and wider-jawed, have relatively smaller top halves and eyes, and more prominent brow-ridges. Highly feminine faces, conversely, have relatively larger eyes and smaller brow ridges, smaller jaws and fuller lips (Weston, Friday, and Lio, 2007). These differences are driven proximally by growth of the male face during puberty, under the influence of testosterone. Humans also show considerable size dimorphism, with males on average 8% taller (Gray and Wolfe, 1980) and 15% heavier (Ruff, 2002) than females. Testosterone influences both the body size differences and the face-shape differences, but the proportional sex differences in face shape are not explicable simply in terms of overall size dimorphism, suggesting a role for sexual selection of the facial proportions themselves (Weston et al., 2007). Consistent with this idea, male common chimpanzee faces seem to have been sexually selected for width, rather than larger bottom halves, with extra width not accounted for by size dimorphism, whereas larger male lowland gorilla faces are entirely explicable in terms of size dimorphism (Weston et al., 2007; Weston, Friday, Johnstone, and Schrenk, 2004). On the other hand, all of the bipedal fossil hominins that have been examined (e.g.,  Homo erectus,  H. ergaster, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus ) show similar or greater height dimorphism to that found in modern humans (Ruff, 2002), and they also show the same pattern of sexual shape dimorphism as modern human faces, with males having larger bottom halves and smaller top halves of faces than is predicted by size dimorphism alone (Weston et al., 2007). The current study is designed to test the idea that the evolutionary srcin of the shape dimorphism in human faces is the different viewpoints of male and female faces afforded by the height dimorphism. A face viewed from slightly above – the typical male perspective on female faces – appears to have a larger forehead, larger eyes and a smaller chin than one viewed from slightly below – the typical female perspective on male faces (see figure 1). We postulate that the way faces look from these different perspectives placed sexual selection pressure on males and/or females to develop faces that emphasized, exaggerated or just ossified the perceptual perspective differences, as a signal of masculinity and/or femininity. To test this idea we manipulated the pitch (forward or backward tilt) of 3D models of male and female faces and had both male and female observers make judgments of the masculinity/femininity and attractiveness of the faces. Previous research has manipulated the height of the internal features of a face (as a rough proxy for pitch) and found that placement of the internal features influences attractiveness ratings in adults, but not infants (Geldart, Maurer, and Henderson, 1999), the influence changes with age (from 3 to 12 – Cooper, Geldart, Mondloch, and Maurer, 2006), and in adults it correlates with the rater’s height (Geldart, 2008). Collectively, this has been Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(4). 2010. -574-   Sexually dimorphic human faces interpreted as an effect of experience from particular viewpoints influencing attractiveness  judgments, since familiarity itself increases attractiveness, of faces specifically (Little, DeBruine, and Jones, 2005) and of stimuli generally via the Mere Exposure effect (Rhodes and Halberstadt, 2001), or as a preference for “baby” faces. Despite the hints provided by these findings, there is no published report that has examined the role of the sex of the face or the sex of the rater in this effect and there is no previous research that has examined the effect of a realistic manipulation of pitch. Campbell, Wallace, and Benson (1996) found that averting the eyes downward (but not tilting the head) slowed sex judgments of both male and female faces, and reduced masculinity ratings of male faces, but did not affect femininity ratings of female faces. The authors attributed this finding to changes in the distance between the brow and the eye, a reliably sexually dimorphic feature. Averting the eyes downward increases this distance more for male faces than for female faces, making male faces appear more feminine and reducing the sexual dimorphism of the measure. No study has yet measured the effect of pitch on perceived masculinity/femininity by actually presenting images of faces at different tilts. Mignault and Chauderi (2003) have examined the role of head pitch in facial-emotional signaling. Likening the bowing and raising of the head to the appeasement and dominance displays of many non-human animals, the authors demonstrated that upwardly tilted heads of both sexes were perceived as more dominant and as expressing superiority-related emotions, such as pride and disdain. Downwardly tilted heads, conversely, were perceived as expressing inferiority-related expressions such as guilt and shame. Given the positive relationship between dominance and masculinity of male faces (Neave, Laing, Fink, and Manning, 2003), the effect of head-tilt on perceived dominance is potentially relevant to the interpretation of the current data and we will consider this possibility further in the discussion section. In the current study, participants completed two tasks designed to measure the perceived masculinity or femininity of faces, and to rate their attractiveness. The virtual viewpoint of the face was manipulated by importing photos of faces into a 3D face modeling program (FaceGen, Singular Inversions) and manipulating the portrayed pitch of the resulting model. Faces were depicted untilted (straight), tilted slightly upwards (up 1), further upwards (up 2), slightly downwards (down 1) and further downwards (down 2). Main, DeBruine, Little, and Jones (2010) have shown that faces are perceived as more attractive when viewed front-on (eyes straight ahead, looking at the viewer) than if viewed at a three-quarter perspective (eyes straight ahead, so not looking at the viewer) if the face is showing a happy expression or if it belongs to a physically attractive individual. For this reason, the stimuli in our study were all created with eye-gaze directed at the viewer. We predicted that if angle of view has been an important determinant of masculinity/femininity and attractiveness, then female faces will be judged more feminine and more attractive when tilted forwards (simulating viewing from above), and less feminine and less attractive when tilted backwards (simulating viewing from below). Male faces, conversely, will be judged more masculine when tilted backwards and less masculine when tilted forwards. Given the complex relationship between masculinity and attractiveness, we would not predict any straightforward relationship between pitch and Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(4). 2010. -575-   Sexually dimorphic human faces attractiveness for male faces. In order to be sure that the results were not specific to a particular range of attractiveness, we manipulated the attractiveness of the imported faces by morphing faces towards or away from attractive average faces. Since we are hypothesizing that sexual selection may have acted on face shape to make female faces, for example, most feminine when viewed from slightly above (the view males typically have of them), we are predicting that both sexes should rate female faces as more feminine when they are tilted downwards (with the converse arguments applying to male faces). If, on the other hand, changes in masculinity/femininity ratings as a function of pitch are the result of normative experience of viewing faces, we would predict to see those effects more pronounced in ratings provided by the opposite sex than ratings provided by the same sex. Materials and Methods Faces imported into FaceGen were from the Aberdeen set of the PICS database ( ). Ages are not supplied with this dataset but they can be subjectively estimated to be in their twenties, possibly up to early thirties. We created models of 10 real male faces, 10 real female faces, 3 average male faces and 3 average female faces (each average face was created by morphing 8 Caucasian faces of the appropriate sex – in pilot data these averages were rated as highly attractive). We then made “attractive” and “unattractive” versions of the real faces by using FaceGen to morph the 3D model of each real face 50% towards an average of the average face models or 50% away from that average. This created 33 male and 33 female face models that varied in attractiveness. All face models were rendered with the same short black hair (see figure 1), and presented in color. Pitch of the face was manipulated in FaceGen (which produces rotatable 3D models of the imported faces) by shifting the eye gaze of the face to each of 25% and 50% of maximum upward gaze, and 25% and 50% of maximum downward gaze, and then adjusting the pitch of the face until the eyes gazed directly ahead. This resulted in five levels of pitch (up 1, up 2, straight, down 1 and down 2), corresponding to tilts in the range of ± 5-8° and ± 10-15° for the up/down 1 and up/down 2 stimuli respectively. Taking the mean height difference between the sexes to be 13cm, the minimum and maximum tilts employed represent the viewpoints of opposite sex faces at distances ranging from 1.5m to 0.5m, respectively. Given normal variation in height and possible movement of the head during conversation the total range of viewpoints in our study, -15° to +15°, likely corresponds closely to the actual perspectives of faces people have during normal conversation. Each of the face models was exported as a jpg (400x400 pixels at a resolution of 72 pixels per inch) at each pitch, resulting in a stimulus set of 165 female and 165 male faces. Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(4). 2010. -576-   Sexually dimorphic human faces Figure 1.  Examples of the stimuli as presented in: (a) & (b) the ratings tasks; (a)i, (a)ii, (a)iii & (a)iv examples of unattractive, real, attractive and average female faces and (b)i, (b)ii, (b)iii & (b)iv examples of unattractive, real, attractive and average male faces; (c) the forced-choice tasks, (c)i male stimuli, untilted on the left and tilted upwards (up 1) on the right; (c)ii female stimuli, untilted on the right and tilted downward (down 1) on the left Data were collected using Superlab (Cedrus Corp.) controlled experiments on 20” iMac computers. Twenty-nine females (mean age 23.3y) and 10 males (mean age 27.2y) participated in the study. They were recruited from an intermediate-level undergraduate Evolutionary Psychology course, or were friends and colleagues of the researchers. Each participant first rated the attractiveness (from 1-9, 1:least, 5:average, 9:most) of all 165 faces of the opposite sex (task 1) and then, in a forced choice paradigm, chose the most attractive face (from these opposite sex faces) from two depictions of the same individual at different pitches (task 2). We used two tasks in order to maximize the generalizability of any effects we found, and to ensure that we had a measure that was somewhat like making Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(4). 2010. -577- 
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!