Original articles
Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00040-4Get rights and content

Abstract

Small deviations from bilateral symmetry (a phenomenon called fluctuating asymmetry [FA]) are believed to arise due to an organism's inability to implement a developmental program when challenged by developmental stress. FA thus provides an index of an organism's exposure to adverse environmental effects and its ability to resist these effects. If one wishes to choose an individual with good health and fertility, FA could be used as an index of a potential partner's suitability. To explore whether this theory can be applied to human female bodies (excluding heads), we used a specially developed software package to create images with perfect symmetry. We then compared the relative attractiveness of the normal (asymmetric image) with the symmetric image. When male and female observers rated the images for attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10, there was no significant difference in attractiveness between the symmetric and asymmetric images. However, in a two-alternative forced-choice experiment, the symmetric image was significantly more popular. The evidence suggests a role for symmetry in the perception of the attractiveness of the human female body.

Section snippets

Experiment 1: rating experiment

Twenty-five human female subjects [ages 20.2 ± (SD) 1.8 years, BMI 21.2 ± 2.1, WHR 0.78 ± 0.04] were video taped in front view using a Super-VHS video camera at a standard distance of 1 meter, and a full-color image of each female was frame grabbed using a Silicon Graphics Indy workstation. Female subjects were dressed in pale gray leotards and leggings. Hair was tied back so the neck was visible. Participants stood in a standard posture: the positions for feet were marked on the floor and each

Experiment 1: ratings experiment

The average attractiveness rating by the male observers of the female symmetric images was 4.74 ± 0.71, and for normal images was 4.81 ± 0.75. The average attractiveness rating by the female observers of the symmetric images was 5.06 ± 0.77, and for the normal images was 4.82 ± 0.79. No significant difference was found between the attractiveness ratings of symmetric versus normal images for the 30 male observers [beta (standardized regression coefficient) = −0.69, t = −0.82, df = 24, two-tailed

Discussion

When observers were asked to rate images for attractiveness, there was no significant difference in their rating of normal images (varying in symmetry) and their morphed (completely symmetric) versions. It might be argued that there is no perceptible difference in symmetry of the normal and averaged images, which is why they were not rated as different in attractiveness. However, that the morphed version of an image pair was preferred in the forced-choice experiment suggests this is not the

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Piers Cornelissen for his advice on statistical analysis and Esther Cohen-Tovée, Marion Petrie, and Sue Healy for their comments and constructive criticism of the manuscript.

References (37)

  • R. Thornhill et al.

    The evolution of human-sexuality

    Trends Ecol Evol

    (1996)
  • M.J. Tovée et al.

    Super modelsstick insects or hour glasses

    Lancet

    (1997)
  • M.J. Tovée et al.

    Optimal BMI and maximum sexual attractiveness

    Lancet

    (1998)
  • P.J. Benson et al.

    A computer-graphic technique for the study of body size perception and body types

    Behav Res Methods Instrument Comput

    (1999)
  • P.J. Benson et al.

    Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars

    Perception

    (1993)
  • S.W. Gangestad et al.

    Individual differences in developmental precision and fluctuating asymmetrya model and its implications

    J Evol Biol

    (1999)
  • K. Grammer et al.

    Facial attractiveness and sexual selectionthe role of symmetry and averageness

    J Comp Psychol

    (1994)
  • R. Kowner

    Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgement in a developmental perspective

    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform

    (1996)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text