Lack of Correlation between Facial Sexual Dimorphism, Fluctuating Asymmetry and Self-Perceived Attractiveness in Men and Women

Stefan Van Dongen,Peter Claes,Omid Ekrami

doi:10.3390/sym12020236

Stefan Van Dongen, Peter Claes + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12020236

Copy DOI

Abstract

Human morphological sexual dimorphism and fluctuating asymmetry have been suggested to signal ‘individual quality’ and are therefore expected to covary as well as to correlate with surrogate fitness/quality measures like attractiveness and dominance. While some case studies indeed found support for these hypotheses, the overall evidence is not overwhelming. However, most previous research used a limited number of landmarks to quantify masculinity and asymmetry. We here present results based on high-density 3D scans covering the entire facial area. In spite of these more detailed measurements, no significant associations were detected. These results are in line with conclusions of recent meta-analyses and cast doubt on the role of masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry as signals of (genetic) quality.

Highlights

The condition-dependent male ornamentation theory predicts that signaling traits of individual phenotypical and/or genetic quality can only develop under favorable conditions
We explore two major hypotheses using high-density 3D facial scans
While facial masculinity did correlate significantly with handgrip strength (HGS)

Summary

Introduction

The condition-dependent male ornamentation theory predicts that signaling traits of individual phenotypical and/or genetic quality can only develop under favorable conditions. In humans, two such candidate signaling traits have been put forward, namely morphological sexual dimorphism and fluctuating asymmetry. Fluctuating asymmetry (FA, random deviations from perfect symmetry) has been considered as a measure of developmental instability (DI, the sensitivity of an organisms’ development to developmental perturbations [1]) and has been studied in an evolutionary context in many species, including humans. To FA, human morphological masculinity has repeatedly been put forward as a signal of individual ‘quality’

Methods

Results

Conclusion