In human males and females, bilateral symmetry of facial shape influences assessments of attractiveness. It is possible, however, that other primate species also possess preferences for conspecific facial symmetry. To assess this experimentally, we presented 13 adult rhesus macaques (8 females, 5 males) with computer-manipulated images of symmetrical and asymmetrical versions of opposite-sexed conspecific faces. We utilized looking behavior to assess visual preferences for these factors. We found significant preferences for symmetry, raising the possibility that human preferences for facial symmetry are more deeply rooted in our evolutionary history than previously realized. Our results also have implications for the use of facial shape as a mechanism for attractiveness appraisals across the Primates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Benson, P. J., and Perrett, D. I. (1991). Synthesising continuous tone caricatures. Image Vis. Comput. 9: 123–129.
Bercovitch, F. B. (1997). Reproductive strategies of rhesus macaques. Primates 38: 247–263.
Bernstein, I. S., and Gordon, T. P. (1980). Mixed taxa introductions, hybrids and macaque systematics. In Lindburg, D. G. (ed.), The Macaques: Studies in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 125–147.
Bielert, C., Girolami, L., and Jowell, S. (1989). An experimental examination of the colour component in visually mediated sexual arousal of the male chacma baboon (Papio ursinus). J. Zool. Lond. 219: 569–579.
Bjorksten, T. A., Fowler, K., and Pomiankowski, A. (2000). What does sexual trait FA tell us about stress? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 163–166.
Demaria, C., and Thierry, B. (1988). Responses to animal stimulus photographs in stumptailed macaques (Macaca arctoides). Primates 29: 237–244.
Dewsbury, D. A. (1982). Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am. Nat. 119: 601–610.
Dittrich, W. (1990). Representation of faces in longtailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Ethology 85: 265–278.
Dittrich, W. H. (1994). How monkeys see others: discrimination and recognition of monkeys’ shape. Behav. Proc. 33: 139–154.
Dixson, A. F. (1998). Primate Sexuality: Comparative Studies of Prosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Human Being, Oxford University Press, New York.
Domb, L. G., and Pagel, M. (2001). Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature 410: 204–206.
Enquist, M., and Arak, A. (1994). Symmetry, beauty, and evolution. Nature 372: 169–172.
Enquist, M., Ghirlanda, S., Lundqvist, D., and Wachtmeister, C. (2002). An ethological theory of attractiveness. In Rhodes, G., and Zebrowitz, L. (eds.), Advances in Visual Cognition, Vol. 1: Facial Attractiveness, Ablex, Westport, CT, pp. 127–151.
Enquist, M., and Johnstone, R. A. (1997). Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 264: 1345–1348.
Fujita, K. (1993). Role of some physical characteristics in species recognition by pigtail monkeys. Primates 34: 133–140.
Fujita, K., and Wantanabe, K. (1995). Visual preference for closely related species by Sulawesi macaques. Am. J. Primatol. 37: 253–261.
Gauthier, C. A. (1999). Reproductive parameters and paracallosal skin color changes in captive female Guinea baboons, Papio papio. Am. J. Primatol. 47: 67–74.
Grammer, K., and Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J. Comp. Psychol. 108: 233–242.
Hansen, L. T. T., Amundsen, T., and Forsgren, E. (1999). Symmetry: Attractive not only to females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 1235–1240.
Hasselmo, M. E., Rolls, E. T., and Baylis, G. C. (1989). The role of expression and identity in the face-selective responses of neurons in the temporal visual cortex of the monkey. Behav. Brain Res. 32: 203–218.
Jansson, L., Forkman, B., and Enquist, M. (2002). Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Anim. Behav. 63: 617–621.
Johnstone, R. A. (1994). Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372: 172–175.
Johnstone, R. A., Reynolds, J. D., and Deutsch, J. C. (1996). Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50: 1382–1391.
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., and Perrett, D. I. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evol. Hum. Behav. 22: 417–429.
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Riser-Danner, L. A., and Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype? Dev. Psychol. 23: 363–369.
Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., and Perrett, D. I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 39–44.
Little, A. C., and Jones, B. C. (2003). Evidence against the perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270: 1759–1763.
Manson, J. H. (1994a). Male aggression: A cost of female mate choice in Cayo Santiago rhesus macaques. Anim. Behav. 48: 473–475.
Manson, J. H. (1994b). Mating patterns, mate choice, and birth season heterosexual relationships in free-ranging rhesus macaques. Primates 35: 417–433.
Martin, P., and Bateson, P. (1993). Measuring Behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Mealey, L. M., Bridgstock, R., and Townsend, G. C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76: 151–158.
Møller, A. P. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliability reveal male quality. Anim. Behav. 40: 1185–1187.
Møller, A. P., and Swaddle, J. P. (1997). Asymmetry, Developmental Stability and Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Owens, I. P. F., and Thompson, D. B. A. (1994). Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 258: 93–99.
Parga, J. (2003). Male mate choice in ringtailed lemurs (Lemur catta): The relationship between male mating effort and female reproductive potential. Am. J. Primatol. 60: 50–51.
Parr, L. A., Winslow, J. T., Hopkins, W. D., and de Waal, F. M. B. (2000). Recognising facial cues: Individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J. Comp. Psychol. 114: 47–60.
Pascalis, O., Petit, O., Kim, J. H., and Campbell, R. (1998). Picture perception in primates: the case of face perception. In Fagot, J. (ed.), Picture Perception in Animals, Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, pp. 263–294.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S. B. P., Burt, D. M., and Perrett, D. I. (2001). Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268: 1617–1623.
Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., and Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20: 295–307.
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., and Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature 394: 884–887.
Perrett, D. I., and Mistlin, A. J. (1990). Perception of facial characteristics by monkeys. In Stebbins, W. C., and Berkley, M. A. (eds.), Comparative Perception, Vol. II: Complex Signals, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 187–213.
Quinsey, V. L., Earls, C., Ketsetzis, M., and Karamanoukian, A. (1996). Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest. Ethol. Sociobiol. 17: 341–354.
Radesäter, T., and Halldórsdóttir, H. (1993). Fluctuating asymmetry and forceps size in earwigs, Forficula auricularia. Anim. Behav. 45: 626–628.
Rhodes, G., Geddes, K., Jeffery, L., Dziurawiec, S., and Clark, A. (2001a). Are average and symmetric faces attractive to infants? Discrimination and looking preferences. Perception 31: 315–321.
Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M., and Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5: 659–669.
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., and McKay, R. (2001b). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evol. Hum. Behav. 22: 31–46.
Rosenfeld, S. A., and van Hosen, G. W. (1979). Face recognition in the rhesus monkey. Neuropsychlogica 17: 503–509.
Rowland, D. A., and Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and colour. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 15: 70–76.
Sasaki, Y., Vanduffel1, W., Knutsen, T., Tsaol, D., and Tootell, R. (2005). Symmetry activates visual cortex in human and non-human primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 3159–3163.
Sheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., and Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues to good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 1913–1917.
Singh, D. (1995). Female health, attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of breast symmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. Ethol. Sociobiol. 16: 465–481.
Swaddle, J. P., Che, J. P., and Clelland, R. E. (2004). Symmetry preference as a cognitive by-product in starlings. Behaviour 141: 469–478.
Swaddle, J. P., and Cuthill, I. C. (1995). Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness—symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 261: 111–116.
Thornhill, R., and Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry and parasite resistance. Hum. Nat. 4: 237–269.
Thornhill, R., and Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends Cog. Sci. 3: 452–460.
Thornhill, R., and Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol. Rev.72: 497–548.
Tomkins, J. L., and Simmons, L. W. (1998). Female choice and manipulations of forceps size and symmetry in the earwig Forficula auricularia L. Anim. Behav. 56: 347–356.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp. 136–179.
van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1967). The facial displays of catarrhine monkeys and apes. In Morris, D. (ed.), Primate Ethology, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, pp. 7–68.
Van Valen, L. A. (1962). A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 16: 125–142.
Waitt, C. (2005). Facial Attractiveness Among Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta): Manipulating and Measuring Preferences for Conspecifics’ Facial Characteristics. PhD thesis, University of Stirling.
Waitt, C., Little, A. C., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., Hancock, P., Lorincz, E., Fairhall, S. J., Pearce, P. C., Honess, P., Wolfensohn, S., and Perrett, D. I. Primate aesthetics: facial shape also influences preferences among nonhuman primates. In review.
Waitt, C., Little, A. C., Wolfensohn, S., Honess, P., Brown, A. P., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., and Perrett, D. I. (2003). Evidence from rhesus macaques suggests male colouration plays a role in female primate mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270: 144–146.
Wilson, F. A. W., and Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1994). Viewing preferences of rhesus monkeys related to memory for complex pictures, colours and faces. Behav. Brain Res. 60: 79–89.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Leakey Foundation and the Department of Psychology, University of Stirling supported our study. NIH, NCRR grant CM-5-P40RR003640-13 and grants from the UPR School of Medicine supported Cayo Santiago. We would like to thank the following individuals: Paul Honess and Sarah Wolfhensohn of Veterinary Services, University of Oxford and Peter Pearce of Biomedical Services, DSTL for granting access to study animals; Peter Hancock for providing his technical expertise; David I. Perrett, Robin Dunbar, and Hannah M. Buchanan-Smith for offering their helpful advice. We extend special thanks to Sarah Fairhall and Tony Brown for all their creative input and assistance
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Waitt, C., Little, A.C. Preferences for Symmetry in Conspecific Facial Shape Among Macaca mulatta . Int J Primatol 27, 133–145 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-005-9015-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-005-9015-y