Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU
Family, Consumer, and Human Development Faculty Publications 12-1-1995 Family, Consumer, and Human Development, Department of

Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply]
Doug Jones C. Loring Brace William Jankowiak Kevin N. Laland Lisa E. Musselman
See next page for additional authors

Recommended Citation
Musselman, L. E., Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1996). Comment on: Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications, by Doug Jones. Current Anthropology, 37, 739-740.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Family, Consumer, and Human Development, Department of at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Family, Consumer, and Human Development Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Authors

Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Prusse, Barbara Schweder, and Donald Symons

This article is available at DigitalCommons@USU: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/fchd_facpub/602

Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply] Author(s): Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Prusse, Barbara Schweder, Donald Symons Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 36, No. 5 (Dec., 1995), pp. 723-748 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744016 . Accessed: 09/12/2011 18:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 36, Number 5, December I995 ? I995 byThe Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved ooII-3204/95/36o5-0004$3.oo

Malinowski (i96i[i929]), Berndt (i95i), Weiner (I976), Gregor (i985), Boone (i986), Euba (i986), Munn (i986), i. I thank KimHill oftheUniversity ofNew Mexicofor assistance Grinker (i990), and Jankowiak (I993). However, existing in this paperand Davic researchstill suffers in collecting some of the data reported fromseveral limitations.First,the Buss,ConradKottak, and John MitanioftheUniversity ofMichi. workofsocial is heavilyempiricaland depsychologists gan,CarlosAlberto Carosoand MariaHilda ParaisooftheFedera] ofBahia (Brazil), and BjarneForsterwald ofthe Puerta scriptive,with little in the way of theorythat would University features attractive or Barra Mission(Paraguay) for helpwithdifferent phasesofthestudy explain why people findparticular This research was supported by NSF Doctoral Dissertation Re. even why theyexperiencephysicalattraction at all. SecsearchImprovement GrantBNS-goo6394 and by grants from the ond, culturalanthropologists have rarely made research ofMichigan's and Evolu. University Department ofAnthropology on standards of attractiveness and their a consequences The Department tionandHumanBehavior Program. ofAnthropol. the ethnographic literature access to library and computeJ majorobjectiveoffieldwork; ogyat CornellUniversity provided
facilities.

our relationship appearanceinfluence[s] with others." More recently, therehas been a revivalof interestin the topic of attractivenessand an explosion of social psychological research on the subject, demonstrating significant agreementacross ratersin judgmentsof attractivenessand significant social consequences of atDOUG JONES is Visiting Scholarin Anthropology at CornellUni- tractiveness. This literature has been surveyedat book N.Y. I4853, U.S.A. [[email protected]]). Bornin versity (Ithaca, length by Patzer (i985), Hatfield and Sprecher(i986), i959, he was educated at Princeton University (B.A., i98i) and Bull and Rumsey (i988), and Jackson (i992). There is the University of Michigan (M.A., i989; Ph.D., I994). He has materialon standardsof been conducting research on standards ofphysical attractiveness also considerableethnographic in theUnitedStates,Paraguay, Brazil,and Russia since i989. He attractivenessin non-Westernsocieties, for example,

ers,males seem to be moreconcemedthanfemales withtheatofpotential tractiveness sexualpartners, becausehuperhaps in femalethanin male mans showfarmoreage-related variance The resulting selection formale attraction to markers fecundity. offemaleyouthmaylead incidentally to attraction to females cues in an exaggerated This paper displaying age-related form. cross-cultural evidencethatmales in fivepopulations reports U.S. Americans, Russians, Ache,and Hiwi) showan (Brazilians, attraction to females withneotenous facialproportions (a combinationoflargeeyes,small noses,and fulllips) evenafter female for. Two further studiesshowthatfemale modage is controlled els have neotenous relative to U.S. uncephalofacial proportions and thatdrawings offacesartificially transformed dergraduates to make themmoreor less neotenous areperceived as corremoreor less attractive. These results several spondingly suggest therelationship further lines ofinvestigation, between including facialand bodilycues and the consequences ofattraction to neoevolution. tenyformorphological

The first publicationbyDarwin to discuss human evolution at length bears the double title "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" (i98I[i87i]) and consists of two works back to back. The first work discusses human evolution and argues "that man is the modifieddescendantof some pre-existing form"(p. 9). The second presents the topic of sexual selection-a formof naturalselection resulting from"the advantage which certainindividualshave overotherindividualsof the same sex and species, in exclusive relationto reproduction" (p. 256). Darwin yoked human evolution and sexual selection together in a single volume because he believed that sexual selection had played a major role both in the descent of humans fromearlierformsand in the differentiation of human races. Physicalattractiveness and its relation to thetheory ofsexualseIn the half-century after Darwin publishedthis work, lectiondeserve renewed attention from cultural andbiological ana number of authors took the topic ofphysicalattracup This focuses on an thropologists. paper anomaly associated with attractiveness-in ourspecies,in contrast physical to manyoth- tiveness across cultures. Many, such as Westermarck

Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny

Five Populations" ofthe (HumanNature4:27i-96) and author forthcoming Physical Attractiveness and theTheory ofSexual Selection:Resultsfrom Five Populations University of (AnnArbor: MuseumofAnthropology, Michigan in press).The present paper was submitted I4 XI 94 and accepted2o I 95; thefinal version reached theEditor's office 24 II 95.

1JZVO

Wl

VX

s X11 V.LI

\s1sX

L....

%J1 %S

XS

11%11a

W1l

a%.1lAl

At4

1Vb13

Cross-cultural Evidenceand Implications

byDoug Jones

years ago, Berscheid and Walster (I974:i58)

to relatethe development ofstandards ofphysicalattractiveness in humans to the theoryof sexual selection. Subsequently, however, the social sciences grew indivorcedfromevolutionary creasingly theoryand from the study of physical variation (Degler i99i). Almost 2o
summarized

(i92i) and Ellis (i926), followed Darwin's lead in trying

the consequences of this divorceforthe studyof physical attractiveness: "Most social scientistshave shown a
studied professional disinterest in . . . how our physical

recordsfew if any attemptsto quantifyagreementbe723

724

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December I995

to the "new physical anthropology" of the I940S and 'sos, tween individuals about standardsof attractiveness, consequences of being and the neglect of sexual selection in the earlymodern assess the social and life-history or to compare synthesiswas inherited by biological anthropology. perceived as attractiveor unattractive, Unrelativelyfew serious quantitativestudies standards of attractivenessacross societies. Thus the til recently, in the social sciences is underde- in physical anthropology paid attentionto the possible studyof attractiveness veloped in importantrespects-undertheorizedin psy- role of sexual selection in human evolution. Hulse's and underresearched (i967) studyofskin-color variationin modernJapan chology and both undertheorized suggested that sexual selection mightinfluencethe evoluin culturalanthropology. too, the topic of physical tion of this trait,and a numberof studies of assortative In biological anthropology causes and matingforphysicaltraits(Spuhleri968) suggested and its possible evolutionary attractiveness how This neglect matingpatternsmightinfluencegenotypefrequencies. neglected. consequenceshas been relatively ofsexual selection However, Hulse's work inspiredlittle commentor folis partofa widerneglectofthe theory biologybetween the I930S low-up, and the literatureon assortativemating was in the field of evolutionary and the I970S-a period that West-Eberhard observed. (i983:i56) largelysilent about the causes of the patterns Era" of sexual selection theory(see Thus in spite of Darwin's argumentthat sexual seleccalls "the Forgotten also Cronin i99i). In the I930S and '40s, evolutionary tion played a centralrole in human evolution,serious biologists formulatedthe "modern synthesis"-a syn- quantitativestudiesofadaptationin physicalanthropolon adaptationto the thesis of Darwin's theoryof evolutionand the new sci- ogy have focused overwhelmingly Only recently, ence of genetics.The pioneersof the modernsynthesis physical environment. with the rise of adaptationto ecologi- human behavioral ecology,have anthropologists had theirhands fullinvestigating begun to bringthe moderntheory They were less concernedwith the evo- trying cal constraints. of sexual selectionto lution of social behaviorand had littleuse forDarwin's the studyofhuman evolution(Chagnonand Irons I979, Betzig,Turke,and Borgerhoff Mulder i988). But to date, theoryof sexual selection. Why did the theoryof sexual selection take so long most such studies have focusedon sexual selectionand to win acceptance in evolutionarybiology?Sexual be- mate choice more in relation to behaviorthan in relahavior and social behaviorin generalpose special prob- tion to morphology. In conclusion,the studyof physicalattractiveness lems for evolutionarytheory. These problems result in ofsexual selection,which was fromthe fact that in social evolution the fitnessof a the contextofthe theory trait commonly depends on its frequency(Maynard givena centralplace byDarwin,Westermarck, and Ellis, Smith i982). How well a particularshape of tail serves has not been a major topic foranthropological inquiry It is not that investigation will generallynot depend on the in the last half-century. a given bird in flight has shown attractiveness to be ill-defined in the population of tails of various shapesor inconsequenfrequency By contrast, tial; both social psychological studies and the ethnothatis, its fitness is frequency-independent. of that tail to membersof the other graphicliteraturesuggestat least moderateagreement the attractiveness of the other sex, in judgmentsof attractiveness within cultures and at sex will depend on the preferences which will oftendepend in turn on the frequenciesof least a moderatelyimportantrole forattractiveness in various shapes of tail-that is, its fitnessis frequency- social and especially sexual interactions. Rather, particular theoretical have keptboth cultural dependent. presuppositions fromgivingthese topics selection presentsa numberof and biological anthropologists Frequency-dependent selec- theirfull attention.Cultural anthropologists have been seeming paradoxes. Under frequency-dependent tion there is no guarantee that natural selection will reluctantto deal with the more "biological" side ofhufavorgenetic variantsthat maximize mean population man behavior-reluctant to considerhuman behavioras forindividualgainssuch fitness.Instead,populationsmay attainan evolutionary theproductnot just ofstrivings and social status but of adaptations equilibriumin which no individualcan gain byadopting as materialcomfort a different even thoughall would be betteroff forgeneticreproduction. have strategy, Biologicalanthropologists if all acted differently. Or they may enter an endless oftenheld a view of adaptation that could not readily "arms race" in which each triesto get ahead of the oth- accommodatefrequency-dependent selection,including gains. Fre- the possibilitythat one individual's reproductive ers withoutanyone's enjoyingany long-term sucselection may favor traits that in- cess mightcome at the expense of others. quency-dependent The theoryof sexual selection has advanced so farin success ofindividualsbut reduce crease thereproductive ofeco- recentyears that it may be time forrenewedattention the viabilityofgroupsand lower theproductivity systems.It may favorthe evolutionofwaste and extrav- to the relationshipbetween sexual selection and stanin sexual and othersig- dards of physical attractivenessin our species. The agance, ratherthan efficiency, nals. It may result in coevolutionary positive feedback theoryof sexual selection does not imply that people in choosinga matetraits.It was only begin- always maximize inclusive fitness cycles that amplifyarbitrary and in humans as in ofsociobiology adaptations are often imperfect, ningin the I96os,with the development thattheproblemsassoci- otheranimals estheticstandards and evolutionary the prodgame theory, may be partly selectionwere addressed uct of nonadaptive"sensorybiases." Nor does it imply ated withfrequency-dependent that standardsof beauty are completely"hard-wired"; in a sustained fashion. The modernsynthesisof the I930S and '40s inspired in humans as in otheranimals the development ofstan-

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny | 725

(Daly and Wilson i983:279-3i2). Human

dards of attractivenessis likely to involve a range of to mechanisms, from innate templates to imprinting imitationand otherformsof social learning.It does imply,however,thathuman beings,like otheranimals,are likely to have genetic adaptations for assessing the "mate value" of potential mates and that studying attractivenesswithout considering these adaptations would be like tryingto understandthe eye without it as an organof vision. treating

Sexual Selection and Physical Attractiveness: A Human Anomaly

Sexual selection occurs when some organismsgain an at the expense ofothers edge in matingand fertilization of theirsex. Sexual selection may take the formof contestswithinone sex over chances to mate with and fertilize membersof the othersex or courtshipof one sex by the other.2 In many animal species, male reproductive success is moredependenton matingsuccess thanis femalereproductivesuccess, so sexual selectioncommonlyacts with greaterintensity on males than on females (Trivers

of traitsas- i992:65-67). males more than females show a syndrome This sex difference is not limitedto Westernsociety. sociated with intense sexual selection.This "sexual se37 populationsamlection syndrome"includes behavioraltraits:males are Buss (i 989) reviewssurveydata from more likely than females to resortto violence against ples from33 countriesand findsthat in everysample part- males are more concernedthan femaleswith the physisexual rivals and to forcecopulations on resisting of a potential mate. The average sex ners; males cpmmonly expend more time and energy cal attractiveness is more pronouncedamong the non-Western risks than femalesin courtship;males difference and take greater will generally courtand attempt copulationwitha wider populationsin his sample. While Buss's studyincludes holds apparently thenwill females.The sexual selection no tribalpopulations,the same pattern rangeofpartners Ford and Beach for as well. these summarizing 95 (I I:94), traits: males comsyndromealso includes life-history monly take longerthan females to attain sexual matu- evidence from nearly 2oo cultures, conclude that alvariation ritybecause of the sexual competitionthat they face though there is a great deal of cross-cultural "in most societies the frommaturemales; males commonlyhave highermor- in standards of attractiveness, talityrates than females as a resultof intrasexualcom- physicalbeautyofthe femalereceivesmoreexplicitconpetition; males commonly senesce more rapidlythan siderationthan does the handsomenessofthe male. The ratesreducethe selec- attractivenessof the man usually depends predomifemalesbecause highermortality thanupon his tion pressureforlongevity. Finally,the sexual selection nantlyupon his skills and prowessrather similar reports physical appearance." Gregersen (i983) traits:males are more includes morphological syndrome in a more recentreviewofnearly300 societies, likely than females to display anatomical specializa- findings and nonurbanized. tions for intra- and intersexual aggression,including mostlynon-Western other human In words, beingsseem to be an exception horns,antlers,enlargedcanine teeth,and body sizes in rule animals that male attracto the general among males commonly excess of the ecological optimum; The show greater development of sexual advertisements, tiveness mattersmore than female attractiveness. bothtactile (complexgenitalia)and visual (elaborateand importance attached to female (as opposed to male) in our species stands in need of physical attractiveness colored adornments). brightly an explanation. Among humans, considerableanatomical and behavioral evidence suggeststhat males have been subject to sexual selectionthanfemales,althoughthe dif- An stronger Fecundity, Age,
--- 1r +lfe , nn"r%h"er

and Parker i992, I97I, WilliamsI975, Clutton-Brock Andersson The resultis thatin manyspecies, I994).

males are largerthan females.Human males attainsexat a later age than human femalesand seual maturity In all societieswith appreciablelevnesce more rapidly. els of violent conflict,male-male aggressionis more Violentcompecommonthanfemale-female aggression. tition is more common among human males than among females,and male sexual coercion of femalesis is much farmore common than the reverse.Polygyny And in most respects, more common than polyandry. human females seem to be more selective than human males in theirchoice of sexual partners. In one respect,however, human beings reversethe between more and less sexusual patternof differences ually selected sexes-men are more concerned than of a potential women with the physical attractiveness has been foundresexual partner.This sex difference peatedly in studies by social psychologists.A recent meta-analysis (FeingoldI 990) ofthe social psychological in effects ofphysicalattracon sex differences literature tiveness on romantic attractionshows consistentand strong sex differences, including content analyses of "lonely-heartsadvertisements,"studies of attractiveness and reporteddating success, reportsof interpersonal attractionfollowingdyadic interaction, and surdesiredin a mate (see also Jackson veysofcharacteristics

mammals

han"r

Anomaly Explained? and Neoteny

third form of sexual selection, sexual coercionof one sex by the other.

2. Smuts and Smuts (I993) argue that it is useful to distinguish a

believe that human behavior is Many anthropologists in its ontogeny fromthat of other so radicallydifferent organismsthat the theoryof sexual selection is not ap-

726

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December I995

plicable to human physical attraction. Polhemus (i988:8) probably expresses the attitude of a whole of"the body" concerning school ofanthropology the human irrelevanceof the theoryof sexual selection when he writes: A male baboon has a fixedidea of what a desirable femalebaboon should look like.... The same general principleis true of any animal that reproduces by sexual selection. But thereis an important difference between baboons and ourselves.For otheranimals the physicalideal is ioo% instinctively determined.Thus all baboons of a particular species pursue the same ideal.... For humans,on the other hand, ideals of beautyare learned.... In a worldwide and historicalframework, thereis no such thingas naturalhuman beauty. Ifthisview ofthe difference betweenhuman and nonhuman psychologywere correct,the anomaly of female in our species mightbe merelyone more attractiveness consequence of our havingfreedourselvesfromthe instinctiveconstraints that hobble the lives of otheranimals. This view, however,is doublywrong. First,learningoftenplays a large role in the acquisition ofstandards ofattractiveness amongnonhumananimals. An immense literaturedemonstrates that early experienceinfluenceslater mate choice via imprinting (Immelman I972). Imitation,too, plays a role in mate choice among nonhuman animals, and social transmission of matingpreferences can even resultin "fads" in mate choice that change fromone breedingseason to the next (Pruett-Jones i992). in humans cannot be enSecond, physical attraction tirelya productof enculturation.This is shown most ofLangloiset al. (i987). dramatically bythe experiments In these experiments, infantsbetween the ages of two and three months were exposed to picturesof women ratedattractive and unattractive by adult raters;infants spent more time looking at faces ratedattractive. This held even across racial/culturalboundaries: for European-American infants looking at faces of AfricanAmerican women rated by African-American men and for African-American infants exposed to EuropeanAmericanfaces ratedby European-American men. Thus students of physical attractiveness are asking fortrouble if they start out assuming that nonhuman animals are creaturesof instinctand humans constructions of culture. A betterstartingpoint regarding the role of learningin behavioris suggestedby several decades of researchin comparativepsychology:as a general rule,organisms have relatively "hard-wired" or canalized responses to stimuli that have had relatively fitnessconsequences over evolutionary time unvarying and relativelyflexiblelearnedresponsesto stimuli that have been associated sometimes with positive fitness consequences and sometimes with negative. In other words,giventhatlearningentails costs,in termsoftrial and error, organismsare expectedto adapt to selectively invariantsin theirenvironments with correimportant spondingbehavioral,cognitive,or motivationalinvariances (Seligman I970, Johnston 1982).

How can we apply this principleto the anomaly of in our species? Let us definethe female attractiveness mate value of a potential sexual partner, A, as the expectedreproductive success from matingwithA divided by some baseline expected reproductive success. The baseline expectedreproductive success mightbe the expected reproductive success frommatingat randomor from mating with an individual of maximum mate value. As a generalrule we expect that human beings, and otheranimals,are likelyto have bothrelatively canalized, "hard-wired"responses to visual stimuli that have been consistently associated with highmate value the evolutionary throughout historyof the species and flexiblelearnedresponsesto stimulithathave relatively been associated sometimes with high mate value and sometimeswith low. In otherwords,standards ofphysical attractiveness are likelyto have both species-typical and population-specific components,and variation in these componentsmay be predictablegiven knowledge of human biology and local circumstances (Symons I979). For example, since fat stores may be selectively advantageousin environments subject to episodic food in environments and disadvantageous shortage requiring considerablephysicalmovement,one mightexpectthat estheticresponsesto fatnesswould varybetweenpopulations dependingon social learningand on individual assessments of the consequences of being fat or thin, ratherthan developingin a uniform fashionwithinthe human species. one mightexpect human beings to have By contrast, a relatively invariant, species-typical emotional response to signs of aging, because age has a relatively invariant association withfecundity and thuswithmate value. In a classic article Henry (i96i) reviewsdata on rates in a wide range of "naturalage-specific fertility fertility" (noncontracepting) populations. The levels of in these populationsrangefroma lifetime averfertility age of 6 to i i children per marriedfemale, but the shapes of the curves of fertility versus age are remarkably similar across all populations. For all populations, female fertility rates at age 30-34 are around 85% of ratesat age 20-24, with further declines to around35 % for women aged 40-44 and o% forwomen aged 50-54. More recentwork suggeststhat the curve of naturalfediffers cundity(potentialreproduction) somewhatfrom the curve of natural fertility be(actual reproduction) cause the latteris influencedby such variables as age of spouse and frequencyof intercourse(James I979, Menken,Trussell,and Larsen i986). Studiesthatcontrol [orthe lattervariablessuggestthatthe decline in female between 2o and 35 is less pronouncedthan Fecundity the decline in female natural fertility-butthe overall similar. shapes of the two curves are fairly The shape ofthe curveoffecundity versusage is very different formales. Goldman and Montgomery (i989), data fromseveral traditional reviewing societies,report declines to about 90% formen between 45 and Eertility men, and to about 8o% formen 50, relativeto younger after forage ofwifeand durationof controlling 55, Dver marriage. Fecundityversus age curvesthus have two important

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny 1727

in juvenility.(It was judged to be 23 years characteristics that may help to explain the anomalyof intermediate female attractiveness:the curves (i) are relativelyin- old.) In otherwords, the level of juvenilitythat maxidoes not maximize pervariantin shape across populationsand (2) show an ear- mizes perceived vulnerability lier and more pronounceddecline in fertility among fe- ceived sexiness. Kenrickand co-workers (KenrickI994) males than among males. Given the general rule that show that forteenage males the ideal sexual partner is organismscommonlyhave invariantresponsesto stim- older than they are-again, more consistentwith the thatmales are concerned uli that have had relatively invariant fitness conse- hypothesis withcues to female quences over evolutionary time, the firstcharacteristic fecunditythan with the hypothesisthat males prefer more easily dominatedfemales.Thus current suggeststhathuman beingsare likelyto have relatively younger, invariantestheticresponses to signs of aging.The sec- evidence suggests that female attractivenesscannot ond characteristicsuggests that these responses are simply be equated with powerlessnessand that somein males' evaluations of females thing more than changes in perceivedvulnerability likely to be stronger is involved in age-related changes in physical attracthan in females' evaluations of males. This does not add up to a completetheory ofphysical tiveness.However,nothingin evolutionary theory rules of course, or even a complete theoryof out the possibilitythat markersof female submissiveattractiveness, age-related changesin physicalattractiveness. Fecundity ness may be attractiveto men, and the topic certainly is onlyone componentofmate value. Othercomponents deservesmore research. include the abilityand willingnessto provisionoffspring There may be room forargumentabout why attracand heritableviabilityor attractiveness ("good genes"), tivenesschangeswith age, but,in spiteofa considerable devotedto the claim thathuman sexualityand and these componentsofmate value may also varywith literature age, while sensorybias will ensure that attractiveness standardsof physical attractiveness are culturallycontheredoes not seem to be any evidence from does not trackmate value perfectly. Nevertheless,age- structed, related changes in fecundity are likely to be a particu- any society that seriously challenges the proposition larly importantcomponent of age-relatedchanges in thatphysicalattractiveness is perceivedto decline from physical attractiveness, especially in females,both be- youngadulthoodto old age, especiallyforfemales."The of femaleage and sexual attractiveness cause these changes have been relatively invariantover correlation is so obvious that ethnographers the history ofthe species and because othercomponents intuitively apparently take of mate value such as provisioning abilityand inclina- it forgranted-as they do the bipedalismof the people tion may be more readilyassessable on the basis of be- theystudy-and the significance offemaleage tends to be mentionedonly in passing,in discussions of somehavior than on the basis of physicalappearance. There is one alternative explanation for male at- thingelse" (SymonsI979:i88). Symonscitespassingrefof aging on female attractiveness tractionto youthfulfeaturesin females that requires erences to the effects in ethnographies a more extended treatment. Gowaty (I992:23I-40) ofthe Kgatla,pre-revolutionary China, the Yanomamo, and the Tiwi. Additionalreferences writes: can be foundin ethnographies of TrobriandIslanders(MaliThere should be strongselection on males to control nowski I987 [i929], WeinerI976) and Gawa (Munn females' reproduction directcoerciveconthrough I986) ofMelanesia, Mende (Boone i986) of SierraLeone, trolof females.... Evolutionary whether thinkers, and Mehinaku ofAmazonia (Gregori985), to name just informed by feministideas or not, are not surprised a few. A number of social psychological studies (refactsof patriarchal by one of the overwhelming culviewed in Jackson i992) have documented such agetures,namely that men ... seek to constrainand related declines in physical attractiveness and demoncontrolthe reproductive capacities of women.... Justratedthe expectedsex differences as well. venilizationdecreases the threatsome men may feel Let us summarizethe argument up to this point.Huwhen confronted with women; many men are comman beingsare anomalous among sexuallyselectedspefortable aroundwomen whom theycan clearlydomicies in the importanceattached to female (relativeto nate and are profoundly uncomfortable around male) appearance in mate choice. Human beings are women whom theycannot so clearlydominate.The anomalous in anotherrespect as well: female fertility hypothesisthatfemininity signals abilityto be domicommonlydeclines to zero long beforethe end of the nated through juvenilizationis an alternative to, but life span. As a resultofmenopause thereis considerably not necessarilymutuallyexclusive of,otherevolumore age-related variance in fecundity among adult fetionaryhypothesesthat posit thatfemininity sigmales than among adult males in our species. The secvalue and reproductive nals, sometimes deceptively, ond anomaly may explain the first: the importance fertility. attachedto female attractiveness in our species may reseem to be at odds withthishypothesis. flect the operation of adaptations for assessing ageSeveralfindings and McArthur a component of female Berry subjectswith a se- related changes in fecundity, (i986) presented ries of outline profiledrawingsrepresenting individuals mate value. Whetherforthis reason or another,social evidence providesoverrangingfromjuvenile to adult and collected ratingsof psychologicaland ethnographic fortheproposition support thathumanbeings perceived social characteristicsof each drawing.The whelming was the have relativelyinvariantestheticresponsesto signs of drawingrated weakest and least threatening agingand thatthese in responses operate more strongly most juvenile-looking. (Subjects judged this drawingto males' evaluations of femalesthan vice versa. The drawingrated sexiest was representa 4-year-old.)

728

1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number 5, December I995

Thus far we have been exclusively concernedwith changes in attractivenesswith age ratherthan differbetweenindividualsofthe same ences in attractiveness mechanismsdo not operage. However,ifage-detecting accuracy,thenadaptationsforchoosing ate with perfect to nona mate of a particularage may lead incidentally adaptivebiases in the choice ofmates fromamongindividuals who fall within a particularage-class. In other varieswithage,individwords,giventhatattractiveness uals may be more or less attractivethan othersof the same age in part because they have facial proportions or olderages. Because theretenassociatedwithyounger tion oftraitsfromearlystagesofthe lifecycle into later stages,relativeto ancestorsor to othermembersof the population, is known as neoteny ("holding on to given youth"),the propositionabove may be rephrased: varies with age, neotenymay be a that attractiveness component of facial attractiveness.This proposition may hold with particularforceforfemale facial attracof the human male's attraction tiveness: a by-product fecundity may be an attraction to markersof youthful ofyouthto an exagmarkers to adult femalespresenting geratedor "supernormal"degree. with the anomaly of female attractiveness Beginning thatneoteny in our species,we are led to the hypothesis The may be a componentoffemalefacialattractiveness. of this paperwill be givenoverto testingand remainder this hypothesis. elaborating

k=-O.1

-|

k=0

k=O.1

Cephalofacial Age Markers

changesin physicalattracTo considerhow age-related estheticresponses tiveness mightresult fromdiffering to differing facial proportions, it is necessaryto review how the sizes and shapes of facial featureschangewith age. It is convenient to divide these changes into changes in hard tissue (bone) and changesin softtissue (cartilageand connectivetissue). Hard tissue. In human beings as in othermammals, the neurocranium-the portionofthe skull housingthe brainbut also includingthe contiguousorbitalregiongrows rapidly early in development,while the facial skeleton proper-including the nasal and masticatory complexes-attains its maximum rate of growthonly later (Enlow iggo). As a result,juvenile mammals present a characteristic "cute" appearance,with relatively and reducedsnouts. large eyes, high foreheads, skeletonassoChangesin the shape ofthe craniofacial ciated with aging are closely approximated by a simple mathematical transformation called cardioidal strain (Mark, Shaw, and Pittengeri988). Cardioidal strainof degreek maps each point {x, y} onto {x', y'} = {x (i k y/r), y (i - k y/r)}where r2 = x2 + y2. A shape subject to positive cardioidal strain (k > o) shows a downward and outward expansion in featureslocated towardthe bottomand a downwardand inwardcontraction in featureslocated towardthe top. Negative cardioidal strainpresentsthe opposite changes. Pictures of the faces ofchildrenor youngadults subjectedto a posi.

FIG. i. The effects ofnegative (top row) and positive on a 5 x 5 (bottomrow) cardioidal transformations grid and on -afemale face.

are perceivedas olderand tive cardioidaltransformation less cute; pictures subjected to a negative transformation are perceivedas youngerand cuter.Full facial and oftheheads ofbirds, and dogs profile drawings monkeys, and even front and side drawingsofVolkswagenBeetles can be made to appear more or less "mature" or "cute" by subjecting them to positive or negative cardioidalstrain.Figurei illustrates the effects ofpositiveand negative cardioidal strain on a square grid and on a face. The transformed gridswere producedwith the Mathematica a2.2 softwarepackage, while the transformed faceswere redrawn from the originalfacewith the assistance of polar coordinategraphpaper. Attractionto "cute" proportions may be unlearned: even at 4 monthsof age infantsorientpreferentially toward pictures of infant rather than adult facesinfantile facialproporalthoughit is not knownwhether tions per se are the relevantcue (McCall and Kennedy I have cited research(Langlois et al. i987) showi980). as youngas 2 monthsofage orientprefing thatinfants towardattractive ratherthan unattrattive feerentially male faces. If, as I will argue,female attractiveness is

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny | 7e29

partly a matter of cephalofacial neoteny,then infant for attractivefemale faces may be part of preferences a more general attractionto faces or facelike stimuli low cardioidalstrain.3 manifesting Softtissue. Skeletal growthslows down (butdoes not of adulthood. stop [Behrents i985]) with the attainment However,otherchangesin facialproportions resultfrom the growthof cartilage and the atrophyof connective tissue. These affect the relativesizes ofeyes,noses, ears, and lips. "Beginningat age 25, the eyebrowssteadily rim descendfroma positionwell above the supraorbital to a point farbelow it; saggingof the lateral aspect of the eyebrowsmake the eyes seem smaller" (Larrabee steadily throughoutadulthood: ears get bigger, and with innoses get longer,wider, and more protrusive creasingage. Withthe loss ofconnectivetissue,the vermilion or red zone of the lips gets thinner (Enlow I990,

and Makielski I993:I4).

tissues grow Cartilaginous

As a resultofchangesin hardand softtissue with age, it is possible to estimate ages of adults using information about the relativesizes of eyes, noses, and lips.

Larrabee andMakielskiI993, SusanneI977).

Neoteny and Attractiveness

A youthfulor neotenous face is one that combines a high ratio of neurocranialto lower-facial featureswith a small nose and ears and full lips. The appendixgives a summaryof a numberof studies ofneotenyand facial attractiveness. all ofthemfindthatneotenous Virtually as defined facialproportions, above,contribute to female Resultsformales are equivocal. One limattractiveness. itationofthese studiesis thattheyare confined to Westernsocieties or societies strongly influenced byWestern ideals of physical attractiveness. For example, Wagatsuma (i968) shows thatcontactwithEuropeansand U.S. Americans has had a significant influenceon Japanese standardsof attractiveness over the past hundredyears. Because the line of argumentpresentedabove suggests to femalecephalofacialneotenyis a good thatattraction candidate fora human universal,it is important to esis characteristic tablishwhethersuch attraction ofnonWesternizedsocieties as well. This paper reports results from an ongoing crosscultural study of criteriaand consequences of physical STUDY I: AGE PREDICTORS AS ATTRACTIVENESS attractiveness one ofwhose aims is to investigate possi- PREDICTORS ACROSS CULTURES ble universals of attractiveness by collectingdata from of dataon standards I989 and i992 I collected as wide a rangeof populationsas practical.Populations Between in fourpopulations:U.S. Ameristudied to date include two relativelyisolated indige- physicalattractiveness nous South Americangroups,the Ache (or Guayaki) of cans, Brazilians,Russians, and Ache Indians. Kim Hill, at the Universityof New Mexico, assisted currently with data collectionamongthe Ache and collectedaddifor tional data among the Hiwi. The researchmaterialremaybe a releaser in children 3. Neotenousfacialproportions of parental behavior (Lorenz I943). McCabe (I988) reviews studies ported on in this paper includes facial photographs to nurture and individualsin threepopulationsand interview a greater willingness thatsubjectsreport showing data and to lower-facial ratingsof attractiveness with a highratioof neurocranial children protect of facial photographs fromfive She also cites researchconductedat severallocalities features. derive from Facial populations. photographs undergradundercourtprotection showingthat abused children (ages 3-6) dimensions-that uates at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, to lower-facial havelowerratiosofneurocranial groups. studentsat the FederalUniversity schoolcontrol of Bahia in Salvador, nursery is, areless cute-than age-matched

eastern Paraguay and the Hiwi (or Cuiva) of southern Venezuela, as well as three Westernized societiesBrazil,the United States,and Russia. Each of the Westernized populations is the subject of a large body of ethnographicliterature;below I provide a very brief summary of some facts relevant to physical attractivenessin the two indigenousSouth Americanpopulations. The Ache and the Hiwi were first peacefullycontactedby outsiders in the I96os and I970S; up to that time theyhad lived as hunter-gatherers. Membersofthe two populations know what outsiders look like, but most have little contact with outsiderson a day-to-day basis. Both groups maintain a stronglyethnocentric standardof physical attractiveness. For the Ache, Kim Hill (personalcommunication)writes,"The Ache have commentedon how ugly Europeansare parfrequently because oftheirlong noses (theycalled us pyta ticularly puku-long nose-behind our backs) and because they are so hairy." These responses are similar to those reportedby Wagatsuma (i968) forthe firstgenerationof Japanese exposedto contactswithWesterners. Although the Ache and the Hiwi have had little or no contact with Asians or Asian-Americans, theyare curiousabout of East Asian faces, generallyattractedto photographs them, and aware of the similarity between these faces and theirown. A previous study (Jonesand Hill I993) showed much stronger agreementin ratingsof attractivenessamong the threeWesternsocieties in the sample (mean correlationsin ratingsof attractiveness r = and Ache and Hiwi. The .64) than between Westerners lattercorrelations were still significantly positive (r = . I 8), however, a universalas well as a culturesuggesting specificcomponentto standardsof attractiveness. Below I presentthreestudies addressingthe topic of neotenyand femalefacial attractiveness. Data formales are included forpurposesof comparison.Since previous studiesofneotenyand facial attractiveness show a positive relationshipforfemales and an equivocal relationship formales, I use one-tailedstatisticaltests forfemales and two-tailed tests for males. The firststudy includes data fromall five populations. The othertwo studies are more preliminary, but further is fieldwork planned to test the artificialstimuli of the thirdstudy in a wider rangeof populations.

730

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December I995 and Jones(n.d.)providefurther discussion ofproceduresinvolvedin taking, and measuring rating, photographs. For each photograph in each populationsample I calculated thefollowing measuresoffacialproportions: eye width(EW = mean of D [left leftexocanendocanthion, thion] and D [rightendocanthion,rightexocanthion]), nose height (NH = D [glabella, subnasale]), and lip height (LH = D [labiale superius, labiale inferius]), where D (a,b) is the Euclidean distance between photographiclandmarksa and b, and landmarknames follow definitionsin Farkas (I98I). For the analysis below I have dividedeach measure by face height(FH = D [glafordifferences bella, gonion])to correct in sizes offaces, producingthree indices of facial proportions:relative eye width (EW/FH),relativenose height(NH/FH), and relativelip height(LH/FH). These indices were selected to measure the relative sizes of the threemajor facial below that features-eyes, nose, and lips. I demonstrate they do vary as expected with age-eye width and lip heightdecrease, and nose height increases. Two other featuresthat mighthave been included,ear heightand cheek width,are omittedfromthis analysis: ear height was difficult to measure fromphotographs, and cheek width did not show a consistentrelationwith age. Table i presentssummarystatisticsforthese three indices of facial proportions and correlationsbetween these indices (each subject to log transformation) and fordifferent ratingsof physical attractiveness combinations ofphotographic subjectsand raters.The table provides some support forthe hypothesized berelationship tween neotenous facial proportions and attractiveness, especiallyforrelativeeye width.However,simplypiling and reporting up a list of measures of facial proportions their correlationswith attractiveness ratingsprovides only a weak test of the neoteny hypothesis.A better fromdifferent test, combininginformation age cues, is presentedbelow. This analysis proceeds in two stages, the first resultingin several equations that can be used to calculate the predictedage of each photographic subject on the basis of relative sizes of facial featuresand the second using these predictedages to producean index of neoteny. Age-predictor equations. I begin by using stepwise multivariateregressionto produce equations that predict age as a functionof relativesizes of facial features. Forthis stageI use onlyphotographs ofAche, since Ache span a much widerrangeofages than eitherofthe other two photographic sample populations. Using the stepwise multiple linear regression routinefromSystat s.o with bothp to enterand p to discard set at .I 5 produces the followingequation:
(I993)

data were col tographs and questionnaire/interview lected froma second sample of University of Michigai frommiddle-and lower-classresident undergraduates, of Salvador,Brazil,from nativesofanotherAche village from studentsat the Russian StateUniversity ofthe Hu manities in Moscow, and froma Hiwi settlement. U.S. Americanphotographic subjects and raterswere recruitedin introductory anthropology and psycholog, courses and by flyersposted on campus. For Braziliai and Ache photographicsubjects, photographicequip mentwas set up in public places, and interested individ uals were invited to participate. Brazilian, Russian were recruited Ache, and Hiwi raters bygoingfrom doo, to door and by approachingpotential ratersin publi4 places. U.S. photographic subjects and raterswere largelyo European ancestry;attractiveness ratingsof and fron and African-Americans Asian-Americans are omittedii this analysis because a restricted sample providesa bet ter test of hypotheses. Brazilian subjects and raterc identified themselvesas beingofmixedancestry largely mostlyAfricanand European with some Indian ances try.(The issues raised forthe studyof physical attrac tivenessby Brazil's combinationofrace mixtureand ra cial stratification cannot be treatedat any lengthher( but are discussed in Jones[n.d.].) Russian raterswere largelyofRussian nationality with some othernational ities of the former Soviet Union presentas well. Mear Brazilian,U.S. American,and Ache femalesand 24, 2I and 32 forBrazilian, U.S. American,and Ache males age ranges were I7-34, i8-25, I4-5I, I9-32, I8-30
and i6-6o.

brazli, and natives ot two Actlevillages. Katingsot phO

were 23, ages of photographic subjects

20,

and 29 fo:

Facial photographs were taken indoorsin the Unite( States and outdoors in Brazil and Paraguayat a fixec distance in a standardposition. Ratingsof photograph! were collected by having ratersrank subsamples of a photographic sample population.For Brazilianand U.S Americanphotographic samples, new subsampleswere drawn at random for each rater.Because Ache photo. graphicsubjectsspanneda widerrangeofages,individuals fromthe Ache photographic sample were assignec to fixed subsamples with others of similar age. Each raterratedphotographs of membersof the opposite sex drawn froma single photographicsample population; ratings of all three photographicsample populations were collected in each of fivepopulationsof raters(ex. U.S. Americans).The attractiveness ceptforHiwi rating relativeto a given popula. ratingof a given photograph tion of ratersis the mean attractiveness ratingof thai across ratersfromthatpopulation,with age photograph of photographicsubject partialled out. For Ache, re. ported correlationsbetween attractiveness ratingsanc relevantvariablesare means of correlations withinsubsamples (more exactly,means calculated using Fisher's and its inverse [Sokal and Rolf I969: z-transformation An Apple Scanner connected with a Macin. 520-23]). tosh II was used to measure{x, y} coordinatesof a num. ber of facial photographiclandmarks. Jones and Hill

Predicted Age i

141

log[EW/FH] log[LH/FH]i28.

-62

(I;

females)

The variance accounted for(R2) is .23. Equation i predictsages ofAche femalesas a function of relative eye width and relative lip height; relative nose height drops out of the regression.However, an

JO N E S

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny | 73 I

TABLE

and RatingsofAttractiveness Correlationsbetween Measures of Facial Proportions

Males Rating Females FemalesRatingMales EW/FH
-.09

of Photographs
Brazilians

Ratedby
Brazilians (i 9, I I) U.S. Americans (i2, 20) Russians (iI, I4) Ache (iI, I3) Hiwi (4, 4) Mean

EW/FH
.39
.I9

NH/FH
.0I
-.I4

LH/FH
.24 + -.07 .12

NH/FH
-.I9 -*4I -.43+

LH/FH
.I7 .42+

= 49, 20

-.35
-.IO

.32

.I3

S.D.

.43 -* .28* .2IO

.OI4 .23

.29* -.I9 .589

.030

.23 .2I .I25

.020 .I7 -.04 .03

-.07 .03 .I85 .oi8

.00 -.03 .07 -.II

-.I5 -47* .585

.033

.27
.IO

53* .I35 .027 .04

-.I5 .05 -.0I

U.S. Americans N = 5I, 35

Brazilians (2o, 23) U.S. Americans (ii, Russians(I2, I4) Ache (2o, 2i) Hiwi (o, o)
Mean

-.26+
.04 -.20

i8)

n.a.
.225 .oi8

.30* .2 I .25 +

.i8 .02
.09 -.04

n.a.
.58I
.024 .00 .I9

.IO

n.a.
.I1I

.13

n.a.
.OI3 .2 .22 .I3 .2I

S.D.

.202

n.a.
.574
.025

n.a.
.ii8
.022 .I9 .I8 .I4 .14

.022
.IO

Ache N = 4I,

36

Brazilians (I7, I6) U.S. Americans (i2, Ache (i5, I5) Hiwi (7, 4)
Mean
Russians (I2, I2)

-.I2 i5) -.09

-. .26 -*99+ -.43 - .I7

.o8
-.03 .00

-.22
.I5

.3 I - .32 .599
.035 -.02

S.D.

.I9 .I89
.OI 3

.49 .i28
.023

.3I+
.I77 .OI3

-.II .607
.032

.0I II8
.029

in parentheses Numbers are NOTE: EW/FH, eye width/face height; NH/FH,nose height/face height; LH/FH,lip height/face height. ofraters for femaleand male subjects. numbers
+p < .I *p < -O5

Indices of neoteny and facial attractiveness. A neoequation can be produced with nearly the same pretraitsorpresents dictivepoweras Equation i byleavingrelativelip height tenousfaceis one thatretainsyouthful ofyouthin an exaggerated markers form relativeto othThe resulting equation is: out of the regression. ers of the same age. Equations I to 3 can be used to = - io8 log[EW/FH] PredictedAge2 (2;females) produce indices of neoteny: I definefacial neotenyas the difference between the actual age of a face and the + I39 log[NH/FH] - I7 age predictedby one of the equations above. In other words, The variance accounted for(R2) is .17. In otherwords,ages ofAche femalescan be predicted Neoteny i = Age - Predicted Agei (4; females) as a functionof relativeeye widthin combinationwith eitherrelativelip heightor relativenose height. Neoteny2 = Age - Predicted Age 2 (5; females) of age For Ache males, stepwise multiple regression on relativeeye width,relativenose height,and relative Neoteny3 = Age - Predicted Age 3 (6; males) lip heightproducesanotherequation: Thus a face with unusually large eyes, small nose, and (3 males) full lips in relation to face heightwill have a low predictedage accordingto Equations I to 3 and a highindex -6i log[LH/FH] - I36. of neotenyaccordingto Equations 4 to 6. Table 2 shows correlationsbetween indices of neoThe variance accounted for(R2) is .55. comHowever, when relative lip height is excluded from teny and ratings of attractivenessfor different When corsubjectsand raters. two variablesdo not yield binationsofphotographic the remaining the regression, equation. Thus we are left relation coefficientsfor two differentsamples are predictor anothersignificant similar,the samples can be treatedas a sinequations forfemales sufficiently with two alternative age-predictor coefficients pooled (Sokal gle sample and the correlation and one formales.

Predicted Age3 =

I46

log[EW/FH]

732

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume

36, Number

S, December

I995

TABLE

Correlations

between

Indices

of Neoteny

and Ratings of Attractiveness

Males Rating Females of Photographs

Brazilians

Females Rating
Males

Ratedby
Brazilians
U.S.
(I9, II)

NeotenyI
37* .o6
.23 + .25*
*

Neoteny2
.24* .04 .II .25

Neoteny3
-.23 - .I7 -*05 -.02

= 49, 20

Americans (I2, Russians(ii, I4) Ache (II, I3) Hiwi (4, 4)

Mean S.D.

2o)

.38** yrs. 7.5 yrs.

I.o .34* i8)
.20+

45

- i.6 yrs. 5.5 yrs.

.36**

- I.3 yrs. 7.I yrs. 03

-.I3

*35

N = 5I, 35

U.S. Americans

Brazilians (2o,
U.S.

23)
(ii,

Ache

Americans Russians (I 2, I4)

(2o, 2I)

Hiwi (o, o) Mean

S.D.

-.2 yrs. 7.8 yrs. .36*

.I3+ .23 +
*

n.a.

.23 + .25 +

.28*

.26* -.I yrs. 4.5 yrs.

30* *

.o8

n.a.

.i8

n.a. - i.6 yrs.

7.7 yrs.
- .IO -.I5 .02 -.05

-.07

Pooled samples (Brazil + U.S.) N = Ioo, 55

Brazilians (39, 44) U.S. Americans (23, 38) Russians (23, 28) Ache (3I, 34)

.i6+ .I8*
.32**

Hiwi

n.a.
-.IO

32 **

n.a.
-.I3

n.a.
.00 .I4

Ache N = 4I, 36

Brazilians (I 7, I 6) U.S. Americans (i2,

Ache (i5,
Hiwi

Russians(1I2,
I5)

i5)

-.05
-.I9 .07 *38*

-.i6
-.29 .12

I12)

.0I
.2I -

Mean S.D.

(7, 4)

.2 yrs. 9.2 yrs.

-.2 yrs.

.24 +

9.6 yrs. n.a. n.a.

.4 yrs. 9.3 yrs.

.07

Pooled samples (All)

= I4I,
9I

Brazilians (56, 5o) U.S. Americans (35, 53)

Ache (46, 49) Hiwi (7, 5)

Russians(35,

40)

n.a. n.a. n.a.

.25** .3I** I24**

-.07 -.07

n.a.
.26**

.02
.03
.23*

NOTE:

+p < .I

in parentheses and male subjects. Numbers are numbers ofraters for female

*p < .05 * p < .0I

and Rolf I969:5 20-23); table 2 shows pooled data where for pooled correlations The rows reporting appropriate. female subjects-for Brazilians, U.S. Americans,Russians, and Ache ratingBrazilian and U.S. photographs and forAche and Hiwi ratingall three sets of photographs-provide consistentsupportforthe proposition that neoteny is a component of female facial attractiveness.4Across five populations of raters,and across

two indices of neoteny,females are perceived as more attractiveto the extentthat their predictedages, as calculated fromtheirfacial proportions, are less than their actual ages.

tiveness connection for Westerners Achefemales rating is probably an artifact largely ofresponses to eye shape.Achehaveepicanthic and Ache witha highrelative folds, eye width(log[EW/FH]) also have relatively narrow eyes.Westemraters all show an aversion to narrow eyes-correlations betweenlog (EW/EH) and ratings of = - .3 I, - .33, and - .44 for facialattractiveness 4. The rangeof correlation coefficients is such that,forWestern female Brazilian, and Russianraters. raters(Brazilians, and Russians), The apparent U.S. Americans, it is not legiti- U.S. American, Westemaversion withwide eyesdisappears mateto pool coefficients forall three female photographic subject to Achefemales wheneyeshapeis confor. In addition, for all populations samples.While Westemratersare attracted to neotenousfacial trolled ofraters, themuchwider proportions whenrating U.S. American andBrazilian women, they rangeof ages amongAche photographic subjectsmakes it more to uncover seemto showa mildaversion to neotenous facial possiblecorrelates ofattractiveness when difficult proportions other than of the neoteny/attrac-age. ratingAche women. This slightreversal

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny | 733

Table 3 also includes data on ages predictedfrom Equations I to 3 above. Female models have extremely A second test of the neoteny hypothesisincorporate( neotenous faces: predictedages based on facial propormeasurements of two new samples of facial photo tions are 6.8 years and 7.4 years. This does not mean graphs,of U.S. female and male models, on the theor thatthe facialproportions ofmodels matchthose ofreal features ofattractive facesmigh 7-year-olds, thatthe distinguishing since the ages predictedby these equations stand out especially clearly in comparisons betweei are based on naive linear extrapolationsof age-related these samples and Universityof Michigan undergradu changes in adult facial proportions. It does argue ates. The two model samples consist of (i) photographl strongly, however,that female models' faces represent of ten femalemodels displayedon the coversof Cosmo a "supernormalstimulus," presentingin exaggerated politan and Glamour magazinesbetween i989 and I99 formthe featuresthat distinguishyoung women from (five fromeach magazine) and (2) photographsof tel old ones. in Esquire an! male models displayedin advertisements magazines on fil GQ. Both samples were selected from STRAIN AND FACIAL For the female mode STUDY 3: CARDIOIDAL at the Ann ArborPublic Library. samples,I beganwith the most recentissue ofeach mag ATTRACTIVENESS successivelyearlierissues un A thirdtest of the neotenyhypothesisemployeddrawazine and workedthrough til I foundfivesuitable facesfromeach magazine covei ings offaces made more and less neotenousby differing Models not facingdirectlytoward the camera, model degrees of cardioidal strain. From the Universityof and non-Caucasian Michigan photographicsample I selected nine photowiththeirmouthsopen,celebrities, were excluded. Since Esquire and GQ normallyfeaturi graphs: three of females given high ratingsof attraccelebrities rather than models on their covers, mall tiveness by University of Michigan undergraduates, models were selected fromconsecutive advertisement threeof females given averageratings,and threeof fea in these magazines, subject to the same restrictions males given low ratings (high-, medium-, and lowan( attractiveness right females.I used calipersto measurefaceheight, I made a line drawingof each subgroups). lefteye width,nose height, and lip heightand calculate( faceand producedtwo new drawings foreach ofthe origrelativeeye width (EW/FH),relativenose height(NH, inal nine by subjecting each originaldrawing to negative FH), and relativelip height(LH/FH).The mean and stan and positive cardioidalstrain.For each trial,a raterwas darddeviationofthese measurements and the compara presentedwith one originaland two transformed drawformy sample ofUniversity of Michiganun ingsofa single ble figures face(k = - o.i, O, O.i) andaskedto rank dergraduate females are presented in table 3. Fo the threeversionsin orderofattractiveness. Raterswere betweenmodels and undergradu drawnfrom females,all differences studentsin an intermediate-level anthropolates are in the expected,neotenous direction-model ogy class; each set of drawingswas rated at least four have largerelativeeye width,small relativenose height times. The entireprocedurewas repeatedusing photoand large relativelip height.T-tests(conductedon log graphsof nine males, divided as beforeinto high-,metransformed variables) show that all mean difference dium-,and low-attractiveness subgroups. between femalemodels and studentsare significant. For both males and females,faces subjected to positive cardioidal strain (k = O.i) were rated consistently TABLE 3 than the originalfaces (fig.2). The results less attractive and PredictedAges of Studentsanc are highlysignificant Facial Proportions (p < .oi, binomial test) forboth Models of Both Sexes sexes. Results fornegativecardioidalstrain(k = - O.i) are more complicated. For females, average attractiveness ratingswere higherforneotenous faces than Students Models fororiginalfaces. For males, attractiveness were ratings lowerforneotenousfacesthanfororiginal faces.Results S.D. S.D. Mean Mean were marginallysignificant and nonsignificant, respectively(p = .o6, p = .ii, binomial test).Since male and female trendsare in the opposite direction,the differFemales ence between the trendsforthe two sexes is strongly .OI* EW/FH .0I9 .23 .24 significant5 NH/FH .024 .49 .58 .034* .022 .2 LH/FH I.7 OI55** For both sexes thereseemed to be an interaction beSTUDY 2: STUDENTS AND MODELS

Males EW/FH
NH/FH

Predicted Age i (yrs.) Predicted Age 2 (yrs.)

20.2

20.2 .20

4.5
.OI3 .025 .022

8.o

7.4

6.8
.20

3.I*

3.8*
.OI4

LH/FH

.57
.I2 22.8

.47
.I2 23.I

.025**

Predicted Age 3 (yrs.)

*p < .05 **p < .0I

8.3

.oi8 5.8

that 5. The null hypothesis in thiscase is thatdf(theprobability a neotenousfemaleface,k = O.I, will be ratedmoreattractive (theprobability thata thantheoriginal face,k = o) is equal to dm moreattractive thantheoriginal neotenous malefacewill be rated ofgetface).But forall possiblevalues ofdf= di,,theprobability results bothforfemales and formales-that is, tingthe observed for the productof the probability formales and the probability females-is less than.oi.

734

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December I995 tive temales are apparently neotenousenoughthatmating theirfaces more neotenous via negative cardioidal straindoes not make them more attractive (althoughit does not make them less attractive either), while unattractivefemales are rated more attractivewhen their faces are made more neotenous. Attractivemales are neotenous enough alreadythatmakingtheir apparently facesmoreneotenousvia negativecardioidalstrainactually lowerstheirattractiveness, while moderately attracmales are apparently tive and unattractive not so neotenous that making theirfaces more neotenous makes them less attractive(but it does not make them more attractiveeither).Thus there is a limit to how farincreasing neoteny results in increasing attractiveness, and that limit is reached sooner formales than forfemales.

2.5

2
i~ .5-I -0.1

,
0

[
0.1

Females

3 -2.5~~--

attractiveness subgroup
hi X Di

-'

,/

med.
lo

Summaryand Implications
in In humans, mate value declines with age beginning early adulthood. It declines more quickly for females thanformales. Consequently,we expecthuman beings, especially males, to have adaptationsforassessing agerelated changes in mate value. Regardlessof whether age-related changesin physicalattractiveness (especially forfemales)resultfromsuch adaptationsor fromother facesare attractive causes, it is possible thatparticularly those that presentage-related cues in an exaggerated or form.Largeeyes in relationto face height, supernormal small noses, and full lips are markersof youth.The rein this papersuggestthatneotenousfeasults presented tures are indeed criteriaof female attractiveness even when age is controlledfor.Specifically, i. Women whose facial proportions make them look thantheiractual age (as measuredbyregression younger equations predicting age as a functionof facial proportions) are perceived as more attractiveby male raters fromfivepopulations (but see n. 4). 2. A sample of U.S. female models has significantly than a sample ofU.S. moreneotenousfacialproportions and a strikingly female undergraduates low predicted to regression age, about 7 years,according equationspredictingage as a functionof facial proportions. 3. Cardioidal strain,a mathematical transformation shown by earlierresearchto providea good model for changesin facial proportions duringthe course ofmaturationand to affect the perceivedages of faces,also has an effecton female facial attractivenessaccordingto is nonlinear,suggesting U.S. raters.The effect thatneotenyis a componentof attractiveness only up to a certain point. in the above studies 4. Results formale attractiveness are weak and/orinconsistent. What are some possible future directions forresearch on neoteny and physical attractiveness and in the anthropologyof physical attractivenessmore generally? Researchto date providesstrong forthe hypothsupport esis thatneotenyis a componentoffemalefacial attractiveness in Western societies. By contrast,the results

-~~~ 1 -0.1 Males 0 0.1

FIG. 2. The effects ofnegative and positive cardioidal on the perceived attractiveness of transformations faces of both sexes (includingfaces previouslyrated medium, and unattractive). attractive, ofnegative tween attractiveness subgroupand the effect cardioidalstrain.For the threeunattractive females,i I out of I 2 ratersfoundneotenous faces more attractive than original faces, while for medium and attractive foundneotenousfacesmore facesjust I 3 out of24 raters attractive.For the three attractive males, II out of I2 ratersfound neotenous faces less attractivethan nonneotenous faces, while for medium and unattractive faces just i 6 out of 3I ratersfoundneotenousfaces less In otherwords,negativecardioidalstrainreattractive. ofunatsultedin a markedincreasein theattractiveness tractivefemale faces and a marked decrease in the atof attractive male faces but littlechangein tractiveness of otherfaces. the attractiveness In summary, resultsfromdrawingsof faces subjected to cardioidal transformations support the hypothesis thatneotenyis a componentoffacial attractiveness, at least forfemales,but theyalso suggestthattherelationis nonlinear. ship between neoteny and attractiveness For all attractiveness subgroupsand both sexes, making facesless neotenousvia positivecardioidalstrainmakes them less attractive. But highlyand moderately attrac-

k cardioidal strain,

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny 1735

ratio,anothercanforthe two non-Westernized societies presentedin this (I993a,b) notes that the waist-to-hip paper are only a beginning;much more researchwill didate fora universalcomponentof femalephysicalatvaries not only with age but, even among have to be carriedout in a wide rangeof such societies tractiveness, associwith a varietyof researchinstruments beforewe can women of the same age, with endocrineprofiles The theoretical state with any confidencewhetherthe neoteny/attrac- ated withfecundity. case thatneotenous tiveness connection is a human universal. Assuming cephalofacialfeaturesprovide such information is not that this connection continues to be supportedby fur- very strong,because such features,unlike secondary such as enlarged therresearch,many additionaltopics will remainto be sexual characteristics breasts, buttocks, addressed.These include the evolutionary unbases ofmale hips, and thighs,do not appear suddenlyat puberty attraction to femalecephalofacialneotenyand thepossi- der the controlof female sex hormones.However, the ble consequences of such attraction forhuman morpho- topic clearly warrants investigation by reproductive ecologistsand medical anthropologists. logical evolution. i. Evolutionary causes of attraction to neoteny2. Evolutionaryconsequences of attraction to neofurther puzzles. While the connectionbetweenneoteny teny.Darwin unitedhis discussionsofhuman evolution and female facial attractivenessproposed here may and sexual selection in a single volume because he partlyexplain the anomaly of female attractiveness, it thoughtthat the latterhad played a major role in the The resultsof this paper suggestthat it is time raises otherpuzzles. An attraction to markersof youth former. as it leads themto find for renewed attention to the possible connection bemay be adaptiveformen insofar younger women more sexually attractivethan older tween sexual selection and morphologicalevolutionin women, but it will not be adaptive if it leads men to our species. The evolution of modern Homo sapiens findjuveniles more attractive thanyoungwomen. Why, over the past ioo,ooo yearshas been markedby a trend findmarkersofyouthattrac- toward increasing craniofacial neoteny, including rethen,do males apparently tive even among females at the age of maximumfertil- duced prognathism, increased brachycephaly, and genity?Part of the answer may be that mate choice in the eral gracilizationin a numberof populations (Weidenreal world involves attentionto more than just facial reich I945, Newman i962, Brace and Mahler I97I, cues. If real-world mate choice involves both attention FrayerI98I). Biological anthropologists have generally to markers of cephalofacial neoteny to discriminate invoked natural selection for ecological adaptation or to secondary nonadaptiveforcessuch as pleiotropyor biased mutayoungadults fromold adults and attention sexual characteristics fromthe rest of the body to dis- tion to explain these trends.The analysis in this paper criminateadults fromjuveniles, then attractionto su- suggeststhatsexual selectionmay also be involved.Sexin femalesis likely neotenous facial featuresis less puzzling. ual selection forneotenous features pernormally This line of argumentsuggeststhat the neotenous fe- to have become a particularly forcein human powerful male faces generatedin Study 3 will be perceived as evolutiononce increasesin lifeexpectancy had resulted more attractive, relative to nonneotenous faces, if in a larger fraction of the adult femalepopulationliving attachedto drawingsofunequivocallyadult bodies. An- past the age of menopause, thus increasing the ageotherpartofthe answercould be thatfemalemate value related variance in adult fecundity. Parallel trendstoof such may be highestsomewhat beforethe age of maximum ward neoteny in males could be a by-product fertility. Symons(I979:I89-90) arguesthatmales are selection in femalesor a directproductof sexual selecmost physically to femalesofmaximumrepro- tion on males. Whether attracted sexual selectionfor neoongoing ductive value, ratherthan maximum fecundity. Repro- tenous features(or other physical traits)can be meaductivevalue is a measureofexpectedlifetime reproduc- sured in living populations is a topic for future tion, and an individual choosing a partner with a investigation. The conventionalwisdom in the social sciences has long-term relationshipin mind should be adapted to take into account a mate's future reproductive potential been that evolutionarytheory,includingthe theoryof A testableimplication sexual selection,is more or less irrelevant as well as her current in explaining fecundity.6 is thatthe attractiveness ofthis line ofargument ofneo- human social behavior.The successes ofsuch new fields tenous features(in comparisonwith markersof sexual as evolutionary and human behavioralecolpsychology will vary dependingon whetherindividuals ogy,as well as improvedunderstanding of the physical maturity) are consideringlong-term of human behavior,are likely to forcea or short-term relationships. underpinnings in females might reassessmentofthis conventionalwisdom.The studyof Finally,neotenous facial proportions is a particularly provide informationabout levels of ovarian function physical attractiveness promisingtest above and beyond the information the relationshipbetween biology they provideabout case forinvestigating age (Johnstonand Franklin I993). By analogy, Singh and culture.While this paper has emphasizedthe "biowiththe modern logical" side ofphysicalattractiveness, ofsexual selectionas a starting theory point,thistheory 6. Strictly speaking, reproductive value is nota perfect measure of will undoubtedlyhave to be expanded and revised to long-term matevalue because a personcommitted to a long-term allow forthe unique importance ofsocial learning in our relationship maydie orbecomeinfertile before theendofa mate's the fateofthe hypothereproductive career. Whenthis possibility is takeninto account, species (Laland I994). Whatever matevalue becomesa function bothofmate'sage andofego'sage. sis that neoteny is a universal of female facial attracThis topicis treated in moredetailin Jones (n.d.). tiveness, this paper will achieve one of its aims if it

736

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Numbers, December 1995

encouragesboth biological and culturalanthropologists smaller chins and jaws than typical female faces. Feto explore a topic that has lain fortoo long in the no- males' ideal male faces were similar to typical male faces. man's-landbetween the two subdisciplines.

Appendix: Research on Neoteny and Female Facial Attractiveness

and Apatow (I983-84) McArthur Population. U.S. Americans. Research methods. Researchersused a police Identikitto produce"average" male and femalefacesand faces and mature combinationsof "baby-faced" with different features:large and small eyes, low and high vertical small and largenoses and ears,all placementoffeatures, and all threemature featurestogether, threebaby-faced featurestogether. Results. For both sexes, faces with large eyes were rated more attractivethan average faces, which were rated more attractivethan faces with small eyes. The forfemalesthanformales. For other was stronger effect femalesonly,averagefaceswereratedmore (i) for traits, features,which attractivethan faces with baby-faced were rated more attractivethan faces with maturefeatures; (2) formales only,averagefaces were ratedmore which were than faces with maturefeatures, attractive fearated more attractivethan faces with baby-faced tures. Fauss (I986) Population. Germans. Research methods. Researcherasked subjectsof both sexes to constructthe face of an ideal memberof the opposite sex using a police Identi-kit. Results. Ideal males and females had wide mouths with full lips and a gracile lower jaw and chin. Ideal females also had gracile noses and high-archedeyebrows.

and Franklin(I993) Johnston Population. U.S. Americans. Research methods. Researchersused a "geneticalgorithm" to allow subjects to generateattractivefemale faces by a process analogous to artificialselection. A computerprogramgenerateda small population of female faces froma set of randombinarystrings("genotypes") which specified shapes and positions of facial features. Subjects assigned attractivenessratings to faces. A new generationof faces was producedby "seto theirattractiveness lecting" genotypesin proportion and adding small random "mutations" to the binary process continueduntil each The trial-and-error strings. face. subject had "evolved" the most attractive smallereyefaceshad significantly Results.Attractive fuller chin lengths, smaller lower-facialproportions, mouths than averageundergraduates. lips, and narrower Populations. English,Japanese. threefaResearch methods. Researchersconstructed cial images using graphics software: (i) a composite of 6o Caucasian English (blend)of digitizedphotographs females, (2) a composite of the most attractivei 5 females (as rated by English raters),and (3) an attracthe featuresdistiveness "caricature" that exaggerated the second composite fromthe first.They tinguishing threeimagesbased used the same techniquesto generate ofJapanese femalesas ratedby Japanese on photographs males. Results.Images wererated3, 2, i (mostto least attractive) by Japaneseand Caucasian ratersratingboth own group and across groups. Attractivefaces had higher cheekbones, a thinnerjaw, largereyes relative to the size of the face, and shorterverticaldistances between jaw and mouth and between mouth and nose.

May,and Yoshikawa Perrett, (i994)

Cunningham(I986) U.S. American Populations. U.S. Americans (raters), (photographs). and international Research methods. Researcher collected measurements of relative size of facial featuresin a sample of of 50 females.The sample included23 phophotographs of U.S. Americancollege studentsand 27 photographs tographs of Miss Universe contestants. Photographs were rated by a sample of U.S. American undergrad- C. LORING BRACE of Michigan, Museum ofAnthropology, University uates. were associated Ann Arbor,Mich. 48109, U.S.A. 25 III 95 ratings Results. Higherattractiveness with larger and more widely separated eyes, wider It is all verywell to show that males may rate females cheeks, and smallernoses. cheekbones,narrower on various scales of "attractiveness"and that neotenousness may be one of them, but in orderforthis to Riedl (I990) on the appearanceof future have any cumulative effect Population. Austrians. that this is Research methods. Subjects were instructedto pro- generationsit also has to be demonstrated differential to related (Ryan reproduction somehow computer using a facial image duce the most attractive program which allowed them to manipulate sizes, I995). StephenJayGould has arguedthataspects ofhuman neoteny emerged because people find iA "cute" shapes, and positions of facial features. Results. Males' ideal femalefaces had largereves and (I977:35 O), and Joneshas expended considerableeffort

Comments

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny | 737

Joneshas provideda concise, lucid, and ultimatelyaesthetically pleasingresponseto one ofhuman evolution's most intriguing questions: Why is the human male so interestedin a potential partner'srelativephysical atIt should come as no surpriseto anyone tractiveness? who has been partiallyconscious since the onset of pubertythat men around the globe have long been inof to reproduce" (Dobzhansky I972:77). And,in thepast, tenselypreoccupiedwith the relative attractiveness women. Althoughthe existenceof the this was true whethermales thoughttheywere "cute" youthful-looking thereapattemofgazingis seldom contested, sex-linked or not. ifall femaleshave the same opportunity Evidently, to sons forits persistenceaccount forsome of the liveliest reproduce, male choice is not going to have any effect and, at times, most emotionallychargeddebates in the on the characteristics of futurefemale form.Jonesis historyof social science. Cultural anthropologistsare more comfortableexquite rightthathuman craniofacial form has undergone increasing gracilization over the past ioo,ooo years plaining the originsof men's keen interestin the nufroman unresolved (Brace, and Hunt i99I), buthe has not made a ances offemalebeautyas stemming Smith, tradicase thathuman choice had anything to do with it. Fur- Oedipus complex,the persistenceof a patriarchal worldorderprothereare some veryimportant thermore, aspects ofthat tion,or the demands of a postcapitalist gracilizationwhich cannot be detectedby readyvisual moting a consumptionethic that, in turn,encourages discrimination by eithermales or females.The decrease the sexual objectificationof the female, but not the in bone density and the thinningof the bones of the male, body.By failingto studythe phenomenonfroma culturalexplanationsareprone perspective, cranialvault cannot be visually discerned, and it would comparative withthe social facbe a most extraordinary person who would go to the to confusethephenomenon'sorigins embelextent of assessing the relative degreeof incisor shov- torsthatshape its culturalexpressionor stylistic eling and lingual-tubercle developmentor third-molar lishment.From the perspectiveof Foucault and his adand forexample,everysocial interaction is, first agenesis and the relative reductionof the hypoconulid mirers, men's preference about power, and therefore when consideringthe attractiveness of a potentialsex- foremost, ual partner. That leaves "the neotenyhypothesis"right for youthfulnessis less, about aesthetics than about where it was some years ago, when it was judged to domination and control. It is not clear, however, if arises froma forfemale youthfulness be "largely,if not totally,a bankruptconcept" whose men's preference persistence was due mainly to "anthropocentrism" will to dominate as much as froma general abilityto relativefecundity, withan a potentialpartner's (Shea I989:97)-in this case one could call it male chau- objectify ofthe unintended consequence beingthe transformation vinist anthropocentrism. The emergence of "modern" human formover the femaleinto an object of aestheticcontemplation. is an It is importantto rememberthat youthfulness past ioo,ooo years and more is a consequence ofreducresourceoffemalepower,which oftenresults tions from Middle Pleistocene levels of robustness important which I have treatedin considerabledetail elsewhere in the heighteningof men's apprehensionand sexual and Hunt i99i; BraceI995, n.d.).I sug- anxiety.While doing researchin the People's Republic (Brace, Smith, struckbytheparadoxofmen's gested that those reductionswere the effects of muta- ofChina I was repeatedly forwhile simultaneously becominginfearing tions that were not weeded out when selection forthe yearning maintenance of the formerly necessary levels of ro- volved with a beautifulwoman. Althoughit was underbustness was relaxed. The mutationsthat produce the stood that beautifulwomen (whichin the Chinese contrendobservedare not "biased" but just the most likely textmeant women in theirearlytwenties)were harder minimal kind of change that can occur. This is the to control,manage, or mold, when I broachedthe topic at least acknowledged, mechanism that I labeled the probablemutationeffect of the ideal mate men invariably beauty to is evolutionby in the realm of fantasy,that they preferred (Brace I995). What it produces,in effect, When selectionis reducedor suspended,every- submissiveness.Chinese men are not alone in beingapentropy. been maintainedsimplytends prehensive of female beauty. Cautionary tales from thingthat had formerly to run down. In actual mechanisticterms,what we see around the globe repeatedlywarn men of the hidden is not really "neoteny," or the selective retentionof dangersand potentiallydire consequences of becoming The but the increasingfailureof the develop- involved with a prettywoman who is a stranger. youthful form, the fatale archetype and, to a lesserextent, mental process to producethe formerly necessaryadult femme-fatale This is the most likelyresultof the most status is a panhuman theme, suggestingthat cultures configuration. wam men and women to avoid becoming in the relaxationor absence everywhere likely mutationsoccurring ofselection-which is the minimumworking definition overlyfixedon what is most desiredin the oppositesex. For men it is physical beauty,whereas forwomen it is of the probablemutationeffect.

in demonstrating thatmales evaluate femaleappearance to that effect. However, not only does this ignorethe role of female choice in reproductive behaviorthatwas such an important partofDarwin's argument in thefirst place (Mayr I972: 90-9 1)-a perspective which has seen a recentresurgence of interest(e.g., StrierI992, Cronin I993)-but it does not take into account the fact that, in the available human examples, it is the males who ''are characterized by an appreciably highervariance in their reproductivebehavior" while "women are uniformly exposed to the risk of pregnancy and rarelyfail

University of Nevada, DepartmentofAnthropology, Las Vegas,Nev. 89154, U.S.A. 2 V 95

WILLIAM

JANKOWIAK

738

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December 1995

accessing a man's relative social standing.The cross- are likely to have . . . species-typical. . . components, tales revealsthat and variationin these componentsmay be predictable culturalpervasivenessoffemme-fatale beauty,which is always associated with youthfulness, given knowledge of human biology and local circumthis prediction is is seen as conferring greaterpower on its possessor. In stances." I wonderjust how powerful is seldom taken as evidence likely to be. We can only speculate about such local this context,youthfulness circumstances, we don't know whetherthe matingprefof submissivnessand thus powerlessness. I findJones'sexperimentaldesign an ingenious way erences have been consistentover time, and we can be will to bracket,forpurposesof analysis,the possible effects less certainthanwith otherspecies thatpreferences success forthe trait of social learningwhile focusingon the impact of sex- translateinto greaterreproductive At best,we are able to make non-specific predicin the perceptionof relativephysical carrier. linked differences attractiveness. It would be interesting to know what ef- tions such as "one mightexpect human beings to have fect sex orientationand thus potential erotic interest a . . . species-typicalemotional response to signs of the evolutionwould have on his researchfindings. If sex orientation aging." While I do not wish to denigrate and inwere controlledfor,lesbians and straight women might ary approach,which I considerboth important I believe it is essential thatwe be conscious of be expected to differ in their appreciationof relative sightful, in females.I further youthfulness suspect that lesbians the dangersinherentin this strategy. more than straight women will findrelativematurity We would do well to ask ourselvesa numberofqueshave we simplyfocusedon the traitswhich aesthetically pleasing. Because straightwomen often tions: First, come to value what men desirein the oppositesex, they support our hypothesis,ignoringthose that do not? will also find youthfulwomen more attractive.Con- Clearly,thereare many age-indicative traits.Would we men gays have got the same answers if we had focused on, say, versely,I predictthat comparedwith straight will findrelatively men aesthetically youthful more at- head shape, skin quality,and hair color? Secondly,have tractive.If my speculations-and that is all theyarewe consideredalternative explanationsforthe findings? turnout to be accurate,theneroticpreference with Cosmides and mayoper- Here I findmyselfin disagreement ate as the trigger forheightened or dampenedinterest in Tooby (I987), who writethat"learningis not an altemathe culturalobjectification of a potentialsex partner. tive hypothesis" to an evolutionaryexplanation. In a his analysis in an evolutionary By grounding frame- trivialsense this statementmust be true,since learning work, Jonesprovides a convincingexplanationforthe must itselfhave evolved and its operationmust be conhuman male's proclivity to focus on youthfulness as an strainedand informed by processes operatingat other importantaspect of female attractiveness. His request levels and on othertime scales. However,this does not that cultural anthropologists could be learned study the psychological negatethe factthata matingpreference processes of sexual attractionharks back to the disci- or unlearned,and if learned it could be independent of pline's historical mission to study the particularand or influenced by the social environment.Nor, since universalaspects ofhuman experience.It remainsto be there is empirical and theoreticalevidence that social seen how many anthropologists will followhis lead and leamingmay allow maladaptivetraitsto spread(Cavallienter the troubledwaters of documentingthe parame- Sforza and Feldman i98I, Boyd and Richerson I985, tersof our sex-linkedhuman nature. Durham i99I), should we assume thatthereis an adaptive explanationforall human behaviour.I believe that studiessuch as Jones'sare invaluable,precross-cultural KEVIN N. LALAND to facialneociselybecause it is plausible thatattraction fad.Thirdly, Sub-DepartmentofAnimal Behaviour,Madingley, tenyor any othertraitis a society-specific are we just tellingstories?Human evolutionary Cambridge CB3 8AA, England. 23 Iv 95 history of began not in the Pleistocene but with the beginning Jonesillustratesthe value of an evolutionary perspec- life. This means that there is no shortageof hominid, tive. I agree that the relationship models whichwe could betweenhuman mat- ape, primate, or social carnivore and sexual selectiondemandsfurther at- use as the basis foran adaptivestory. ing preferences Evolutionary argutention,and cross-cultural comparisonsare particularly ments are so easy to constructthat empirical support I appreciatethe rigor ofJones's insightful. analysis,espe- should demand more than a cursoryreview of circumhandedout to cially since human sociobiologyand evolutionary psy- stantialevidence or a quick questionnaire chologyhave oftenstrayedtowardmethodologicallax- undergraduates. Jones'sstudy is to be welcomed both ity. I am a little suspicious of his use of one-tailed for the modesty of its claims and for the rigorof its statisticsforfemales (cf.two-tailedformales), particu- analysis. are used to justify a hypothesis larlysince the findings Finally,we should be aware thathuman sexual selecbut his conclusions are tion may operateby means, and at rates,atypicalof aniconcerninga sex difference, robust.His studytouches on important mal populations. Classically, researchersinterestedin probablyfairly the natureand complexitiesof human human sexual selectionhave treatedculturalinfluences points regarding sexual selection, which I address below. First,I raise on mating preferences as a confounding factorwhich some concernsabout the evolutionary of how sexual selectionhas oppsychological ap- obscuresunderstanding a recenttheoretical mine erated.In contrast, proach. analysislof writesthat"standardsofphysicalattractiveness has demonstrated that matingpreferences do not have Jones

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny | 739

to be innate to generatesexual selection (Laland I994) cuses on the facial gestaltas the basis forperceptions of Ratherthan obscuringsexual selection,learnedand so attractiveness. This view is consistentwith the literacially transmittedpreferences(for instance, for body ture demonstrating that faces are perceivedas wholes shape, hair color, or footsize) may themselvesgenerat( (e.g., Hosie, Ellis, and Haig I988, Morton and Johnson sexual selection, increasing the frequencyof the pre- I99I, Purcelland Stewart I988, RhodesI986, Sergent trait.Since, in comparisonwith genetictransmis I984, Young, Hellawell, and Hay I987). Furthermore, ferred sion, social transmissiontypicallyresults in a morc this approach is more parsimoniousthan feature-based ofa preference rapiddiffusion through a population,cul- approaches; both Jonesand Cunninghamfinddifferent sexual selectionmaybe unusuallyfast, patternsof resultsformale and femalefaces,while we turally generated and the alleles underlying favored traitsmay be selected posit,and find, the same pattern ofresultsforbothmale in just a handfulof generations. to high frequency and femalefaces. This analysis suggeststhat (i) thereshould be local, Accordingto Jones'stheory, faces with extremefeasociety-specific correlations between favoredtraitsand turesrepresenting neotenywill be perceivedas more atmating preferences;(2) sexual selection may account tractivethan otherfaces because of selection pressures. for cross-cultural variation in traitsunderlying attrac- As he points out, directionalselectionfavorstraitsthat tiveness;and (3) recentselectionmayhave modified any are extremein theirdimensions(largeantlers,big tails, favored the Pleistocene.These etc.). However, another formof selection-stabilizing predilections throughout theoretical renforce theimportance ofempirical selection-is more prevalentthan directionalselection findings studies such as Jones'swhich explorematingpreference and favorstraitsthat are the average of values in the patternsacross societies. But in focusingon those as- population i982, Dobzhansky I970). Thus,one (Barash which are universal, could just as easily predictthat selection would favor pects ofhuman matingpreferences we should not neglect the factthat otheraspects show faces with average configurations ratherthan extreme considerablecross-cultural variability(Ford and Beacb features. I95 I, Rosenblatt I 974). Males in all societies may yearn 2. The relationship ofneotenyto attractiveness. Jones foran attractive mate,but in some societies "attractive" claims, as does Cunningham,that neotenyis an essenmeans small feet, protruding buttocks, or pendulous tial component of facial attractiveness in females bebreasts.How can we account forsuch local preferences? cause it signals fecundity.However, we have shown And could theyexplain cross-cultural variationin ana- that,althoughneotenymay be a componentof attractomical or personality traits? tiveness,it is not essential to it. Empirically, ifneoteny is fundamental to attractiveness, judgmentsof neoteny and attractiveness must be significantly and highlycorrelated. However, we (Langlois, Roggman, and MusLISA E. MUSSELMAN, H. LANGLOIS, JUDITH AND Departmentof Psychology,University of Texas, Austin, Tex. 78712, U.S.A. 9 v 95 treatiseon the importance Jones's paperis an interesting of physical attractiveness forsexual selection,but several points raised in it are in need of further consideration. i. The nature of attractiveness. Jonesclaims that atin psychology." is "undertheorized tractiveness In fact, thereare two current theoretical on the naperspectives tureof facial attractiveness thathe does not consider. One perspective,consistent with Jones's approach, centerson the importanceof facial features fordefining attractiveness.Cunningham and his colleagues (Cunningham I986, Cunningham,Barbee, and Pike I990) facesare those thatpossess a consuggestthatattractive stellation of mature, neotenous, and expressivefacial Their approachinvolvesmeasuring features. the sizes of individualfacialfeatures and correlating these particular with overallfacial attractiveness measurements ratings. a different We have offered theoreticalapproach in which we defineattractivefaces as those whose facial are closest to the average population configurations configuration (Langlois and Roggman 1990, Langlois,
LORI A. ROGGMAN

fromthat of Cunningham and Jonesin that it is not to Cunningham, "neotenous features" include eye concernedwith particularfacial features;instead,it fo- height,eye width,nose length,nose tip width,nostril

Roggman, and Musselman I994). This approach differs I986,

that judgmentsof attractiveness and age are unrelated in samples of college-agefemalefaces,indicating that a neotenous appearanceis not requiredforattractiveness. while ofcourseJones Furthermore, is correct in pointing out that old faces are perceivedas less attractivethan young faces, it is also certainlypossible to think of faces that are far fromattractive.Even young-looking infants, who are certainlyall neotenous,show the full rangeof facial attractiveness. 3. Measuringfaces.Jones measuresrelativeeye width, relativenose height,and relativelip heightfrom photographsand uses these measurementsto produce equations that predictage on the basis of the size of these various features.These measurementsare problematic forseveral reasons. First,thousands of facial measurements are possible (Farkas I98I), and Jones'sselection ofparticular to measureseems to be guidedonly features loosely by a prioritheoreticalconsiderations relatedto neoteny.His theoreticaldiscussion of changes in facial structure as a functionof age does not mention cheek width,yet he measures it and then later omits it when he findsthatit is not relatedto age. Furthermore, choice of cheek width as a neotenous featureis not consistent with the features chosen by Cunningham(Cunningham

i 99I) havedemonstrated selmanI994) andothers (Berry

and Pike I990). Cunningham, Barbee,

According

740

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December 1995

in this area of width,foreheadheight,eye placement,and eye separa- may or may not serve as foodforthought tion. Cheek width is a "mature" featureaccordingto inquiry. i. Does attractiveness necessarilyequate with sexual Cunningham's criteria.If Jonesconsiders "neotenous" For sexual selection (or any kind ofDarand "mature" featuresto be opposite ends of a contin- attractiveness? uum of age appearance,then he should also have mea- winian selection) to operate,the ultimate outcome has fitness.In the case of femaleneoteny, chin width,eyebrowthick- to be differential suredchin area, chin length, ness, and cheekbone prominence,the other "mature" Jones argues that this process is actualized through to youthful-looking females featuresmeasured by Cunningham et al. We wonder males' beingmore attracted what resultswould be obtainedif these otherpotential because, on average,these females make forreproducmeasures were used and whethera neotenous-feature tively more valuable mates. Hence, attractivenessis approach can providemore than post-hocexplanations clearlyequated here with sexual attractiveness. We are and predictions.For neotenyto be useful as a theoryof told, however,that neotenyalso makes us perceiveinresearchers attractiveness, who employ it should (i) be fants, animals, and even cars as "cute"-a quality but withouta sexual consistentin theiruse of the same theoretically driven closely analogous to attractiveness measuresofneotenousfeatures and (2) not conveniently component. The article does not specifyhow attracomit featuresthat theyfindto be unrelatedto age. tiveness was definedfor the raters.If Jones'ssubjects Second, measurements obtained from photographs had been given a series of picturesof children(or dogs) may not be accurate or reliable (Farkaset al. I980). Evi- to rate accordingsimply to their "attractiveness," my from dence indicatesthatwhen measurements are takenfrom guess is thatwe would findan age gradient running faces as opposed to photographs,attractivefaces are youngerto older, with babies (or puppies) being rated more likely than less attractive faces to have facial fea- more attractive. The implication is that the female-attractivenesstureswithin + i standarddeviationofthe mean (Farkas, heremayreflect, at least in Munro, and Kolar I987). Farkas et al. suggestthat "the neotenyassociation reported face with most measurementsin the range of + i SD part,somethingother than an attractiveness-fecundity may be close to the 'ideal face"' (p. I28). Additionally, relationship.I am willing to take Jones'sword that the Jones'sestimationthathis stimuliwould have thefacial female models' predictedage of about 7 years does not offirstand second-graders thatthe mean that theirfaces are identicalto those of 7-year-old proportions suggests lower equations he has developed on the basis of measure- girls,but still, the models' "age" is considerably than that of an average sample of 20-year-old ments do not accuratelyestimateneoteny. women men should have been se4. Coda. Jones claims that across five populations whose very high fecundity more neotenous faces are perceivedas more attractive. lected to find extremelyattractive.Again, mightneomeasured(notincluding tenyelicit somethingotherthan just sexual attraction? However,ofthe 42 correlations the data frompooled samples), only i i (approximately The answer may lie in Jones'sn.3, where he mentions at the .os level or greater. How thatneotenous featuresprobablyact as a release forpa26%) were significant are we to account forthe 74% of the correlations that rentalbehavior.Among otherthings,such behaviorenforand givingprotectionto individuals indicated no significantrelationshipbetween attrac- tails providing dependentupon oneself.It could thus tiveness and neoteny?lAlthoughJoneshas providedus who are relatively with interesting cross-cultural data, thus farthese data be argued that in the past neotenous adult females benefited disproportionatelyfrom male provisionraise more questions than theyanswer. ing-in which case neotenywould not be the resultof sexual selection. 2. Is female physical attractiveness DANIEL PERUSSE really a human Departmentof Anthropology, University ofMontreal, anomaly? Jones develops his argumentfor a human Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3 C 317 anomaly by pointingout that (a) in most sexually seumontreal. lected species males show greater ofsexual development (perussed@ere. ca). 5 v 95 than femalesand (b) this pattern is reversed advertising Jonesis to be commendedfora particularly clear,well- in the case of humans, where men are more concerned This seeming designed,and interesting study.As he pointsout, sexual thanwomen with physicalattractiveness. selectiontheory has been neglectedin relationto human exception is explained by (c) the human female ageThis paperpresents some ofthefirst morphology. empir- related variance in fecundity.Hence, female physical linked to highfecundity and youthwould have ical testsofexplicitevolutionary hypotheses concerning features and providesreasonableevi- evolved to be attractiveto males-that is, would have femalefacial attractiveness dence in supportof the author'sclaim thatneotenyacts become criteriaformate choice by males. If we really in our species, I thinkwe as a kind of "superstimulus"signaling femalefecundity. want to findsome originality Finding Jones's study generallysound and his results ought to look at a ratherthan b: as a sexually selected plausible, I will limit myselfto raisingtwo issues that species, human males are exceptional in the degreeto which male-male competitionis played out not in sexof the 28 ual advertising but in control over resources (e.g., to femalemeasures, our comparison I. If we restrict b and c, however, the at the PerusseI993, I994). Concerning 40%, aresignificant measured onlyi i, roughly correlations human situationfitsstrikingly well what seems a quasi.os level or better.

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny I 74I

male or female,are more interested universal pattern:females generallydo advertisetheir face. Even children, currentfecunditythrougha host of visual, olfactory, in children'sfaces than in adult ones. The typicalreacpostural,behavioral,and othercues. In nonhumanpri- tion to the Kindchenschema is a wish to protectand mates, forexample, female physical signalingof fecun- pamperthe object,whetherit is Donald Duck, a kitten, dityhas been observedin at least 55 species out of 79 or a baby. Since "nurturing behaviour" is a component Hrdyand WhittenI987). Such sex- of courting in animals and humans (e.g.,birdsfeedeach (reviewedin Blaffer ual advertisingincludes vulval or labial swelling and otherduringcourtship), this could have entailed a prefper- erenceforchildlikecraniofacial clitoralreddening, reddening/pinkening/whitening, features. KonradLorenz chest blis- once said thatin his opinion the Neanderthalswere not face reddening, ineal swellingand reddening, differ- exterminatedbut simply found sapiens sapiens cuter and others.I fail to see the fundamental tering, them as mates. The preference ence between the human case and thatof otherspecies. and preferred forneoteThe anomaly is only apparent,stemmingfromthe fact nous-facedmates might therefore be found in males that human females go into estrus with much greater and females,althoughit mightnot be so markedin the than their animal counter- tradition-bound frequencyand asynchrony females. Another approach to the exforthe Kindchenschemain parts-to the extent that men are likely to have been planation of the preference selected to find physical featuresof repeatedlyfecund the male mate-selection processis the trainedeye ofthe in hunter.Our perception however, Ultimately, attractive. womenpermanently ofbeautyand symmetry is based all these species males are attractedby those female on the necessityforthe hunterto assess his prey.Why do we prefer covarywith fecundity. to bite into a crunchy, physicaltraitsthat strongly juicy apple thaninto A phenomenon that might come closer to a human a shriveledone that may have lost none of its flavor? Fromthe day we are bornwe are told thatnew things of men to attraction anomaly would be the differential women who possessed attractivephysical featuresin are betterthan old ones and that we should exchange degrees notwithstandingthe fact that they old fornew immediately.Fromm(I992) pointsout that different were of equal fecundity as consumergoods and tryto get (i.e., same-agebut differentially we regardour partners Blaffer the best we can afford on the partner differentially attractive). neotenousand therefore marketin relation Hrdy and Whitten (I987), however, point out that at to our own market values. Since Sigall and Landy's least fourprimatespecies show variance in femalesex- (I973) workwe have known thatmen are judgedby the In threeofthose species,the varianceis appearanceof theirspouses. This is why women in parual advertising. It may be of interestthat the firsttwo are ticular become status symbols; it goes without saying age-related. crab-eatingand Japanese macaques and the third is thata man can expresshis highstatusonlywitha young and good-lookingpartner.In nonhuman primates,as Homo sapiens. Goodall (i99I) points out, males prefer experiencedfemales to young ones. The preference forchildlike features seems to be a human characteristic. SCHWEDER Perhapsthis BARBARA has reproductive matingstrategy value onlyin monogaTulbingerkogel 56, A-3001 Mauerbach, Austria. mous species. It would be interesting to know whether 7 III 95 monogamous animals have developed a strategyfor has variouscomponents, judgingthe ages of potentialpartners. ofthe ideal partner The pattern and some activelylearned some innate,some imprinted, It is not easy to keep them apart fromthe environment. SYMONS and to focus on a single one. In everypopulationthere DONALD University of California, are tendencies toward maintainingtraditionsand ten- DepartmentofAnthropology, dencies toward trying new strategies. Females are Santa Barbara, Calif. 93I06, U.S.A. io iv 95 than males in the known to be more tradition-bound mate-selectionprocess. Some female birds are said to Jonesmakes a lucid, succinct, and persuasive case for model whereasthe males oftheir an adaptationistperspectiveon human physical attrachave an innatepartner after birth(Daly and Wilson I983). tiveness. Althoughmy comments are informed by the species are imprinted I will proposesome alternative interAnd in humans it seems that femalesare more content same perspective, (see SymonsI995 fora morethorough presenwith the averagemale face thanmales are withthe aver- pretations age female face. Thelen (I983) speaks of minority-type tation and forreferences).' contribution to the Jones'sresearch is a significant on the partofmen wherephysihuman mate preference cal appearanceis concerned.Jones'sdata leave no doubt "adaptationistprogram,"the goal of which is to partithathuman males are more attracted by neotenouspro- tion organisms into functional components-that is, devices. Nevertheproblem-solving portionsin femalefaces thanby the averagefemaleface, into special-purpose to explainthisin terms less, his main hypothesis-that the human male's prefbut I do not thinkit is sufficient erence for "neotenous" female facial featuresis a byof its indicationof fecundity. youth-is in a sense The response to a childlike appearance (Kindchen- productof selection forpreferring than"constraintist." It does not imply schema) is innate. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (I984) points out that less adaptationist between its signal characteris based on the difference and YonieHarris its characteristic featuresand those of the averageadult i. I thankNancyEtcoff for their metacomments.

742

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December 1995 exists in the population'sgene pool thatcauses its bearX on average. Now, the myriadvagaries ers to prefer of ontogeneticdevelopmentessentiallyguaranteethat individuals bearing this allele will, in fact, exhibit a rangeofpreferences distributed aroundX. Selectionwill favorthe allele if deviationsfromX in eitherdirection depressfitnessto the same extent.But thisis not always the case. An "asymmetricalfitnessdistribution" exists whenever a unit of deviationfromthe optimumin one direcmore thandoes a unit ofdeviation tion depressesfitness in the other.Extremeexamples have been referred to as effect":The most nutritiousgrass (the the "cliff-edge theoreticaloptimum) may grow rightat the edge of a but the cow that always triesto graze there steep cliff, is unlikelyto have the highestfitness in the herd.When fitnessdistribution an asymmetric exists,selection can be expectedto favora preference that diverges fromthe theoreticaloptimum (away fromthe cliff edge). For example, perhapsin ancestralhuman populationsfemales with relatively gracilejaws (and,hence, relatively short lower faces and large eyes) typicallyhad slightlyless mate value than females with average jaws, but selection nonetheless favoredmales who preferred gracile ratherthan averagejaws because the fitnesspenaltyfor choosing females with robustjaws was comparatively large. As Jones'stheoreticalpresentationmakes clear, the general hypothesisthat human males evolved speciesmechanisms designed to assess fetypical preference male mate value does not implythat males universally will develop the same absolute standardsof female attractiveness. The ideal stimulus values of some female can be specified features in an absolutesense phenotypic (e.g., unwrinkledand unblemishedskin), and these are The ideal likelyto be perceivedas attractive universally. stimulus values of otherphenotypic features, however, cannot be specifiedin an absolute sense because they varyamong human populations (e.g.,skin color),hence the attractivenessof these featuresis likely to be assessed relative to local phenotypesratherthan absolutely.For example,a psychologicalmechanismthatinstantiatedan obligatepreference fora specificskin color could not possibly have been universally adaptive amonghumans. What could have been universally adaptive, however, is a mechanism that calibratedpreferences facultatively, about using as input information local skin colors (which in ancestral populations representedadaptationsto local conditions). A species-typical male psychologicalmechanismthat instantiatesthe rule "Preferfemale skin that is a bit lighter than the adult female average" (in ancestral nubilpopulations relative lightnessprobablysignified and high estrogenlevels) would result ity,nulliparity, in very different absolute skin color ideals in Nigeria and Norway. Nigerian men would perceiveNorwegian women as much too light,and Norwegianmen would perceive Nigerian women as much too dark. This line ofreasoningalso implies,however,thatmen m4ysometimes perceive women of anotherpopulation as more

that in ancestral human populations neotenous facia features per se indexed relatively high female mat value. If the human male's preference forneotenous facia featuresis merely a by-product, it presumablywoul have entailed at least some costs in ancestralpopula tions. For example, assuming that Jones'shypothesisi correct,an ancestral male given the opportunity t choose between two potential mates of the same agc one of whom (A) had a more neotenous face than th other(B),would have been willingto pay a higherbride priceforA because ofhermore attractive face,althoug] would have represented B, at a lower bride-price, bettc value; or he might have failed to acquire B's superic weaving skills, which would have contributedsomc and insteadacquiredA's moregrac thingto his fitness, ile jaw, largereyes, smallernose, and fullerlips, whicl to the by-product would have cor according hypothesis, tributed nothing;or he mighthave chosen an older fe male with neotenous features over a younger female(c highermate value) with averagefeatures. While many factors can constrain selection fror it is nonethelessworthask achievingdesignperfection, ing,when considering any given constraintist hypothc sis, why selection didn't do better.If neotenous facio in themselvesdid not index relatively features high fe male mate value, why didn't selection favor male whose preferences were a function ofveridicalage cues And why are only certain facial features,ratherthai when neotenous?In short,althougl all, most attractive mor Jones'shypothesismay well prove to be correct, relentlessly adaptationist possibilities are worth ex ploring. Perhapsthe facial proportions thatJones interprets ii termsof age cues also indexed some otheraspect(s) c female mate value. One possibilityis hormonalstatus which Jonesconsidersunlikely.Yet high androgenlev els in women are positivelycorrelated withreproductiv, and observable indices of higi system dysfunctions, androgenlevels-such as acne, hirsutism,and a higi ratio-seem to be systematically waist-to-hip perceivec as unattractive. To my eye, the faces in Jones'sfigure more in "masculinity"than in age. appear to differ Also, there is a clear adaptationistrationale for ex pectingfemale mate value in ancestralpopulations t have been a negativefunctionof parity, and certainfa cial proportions Maternalbone forma may indexparity. tionratesare elevatedduring whichmayper pregnancy, manently lengthen the mother's face, and a growtl hormone (hGH-V) is expressedin the placenta and se cretedin large amounts into the maternalcirculation which may permanently "coarsen" her facial features. Jonesproposes that neotenous female facial feature are supernormal But ther, stimuli,and he may be right. is a more general (and more adaptationist)reason tha a "preference mechanism"-in any species and in an, a domain-might be shaped by selection to identify ideal a stimulus other than the theoreticaloptimum Suppose that,in a particularcase, the theoreticalopti mum stimulusvalue is X. Further suppose thatan allele

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny | 743

in certainrespects,thanwomen of theirowr attractive, population.A classic example is reported by Wagatsumc mer contact,Japanese (in the paperJonescites). On first perceivedwhite Westernwomen as less physicallyat includ tractivethan Japanesewomen in most features, facial hair,and eye color. But the mer ing skin texture, perceivedWesternwomen's typicalskin color as morn because it was a bit lighterthan the adul attractive, femaleaverageand, hence, close to theirideal Japanese If thereis significant interpopulation variationin fa cial proportions, the perception ofneotenymay be anal ogous to the perceptionof skin color. That is, humar males may have been selected to prefer female facia: featuresthat are relatively neotenous, by local stan dards,ratherthan to prefer certainabsolute facial pro portions.If so, males will not necessarilyprefer femalc featuresthat are neotenous by the standardsof ever) human population. Surelyit is possible fora woman'" eyes to be too large,her lower face too short,her nose too small, and her lips too full (imagineBettyBoop as real woman). In fact,Jones'sdata implya ceiling effec forthe attractiveness offacial neotenyeven withinpop ulations. In sum, I propose that accurate predictionsabout a given male's perceptionsof female facial attractiveness can be derivedonly from(a) knowledgeof the designs of species-typical preference mechanismsin the human male brain and (b) knowledge of the female faces thai the male has been exposed to (because information con tained in these faces will have calibratedsome of his preference mechanisms).Intrapopulation agreement and interpopulation disagreementin attractiveness ratings are not evidence thatpeople "learn" standards of attractivenessfromone another-any more than intrapopulation homogeneity and interpopulation in heterogeneity skin color is evidence thatpeople "learn" theirskin col ors fromone another.

moderate correlatomical landmarksand demonstrate tions between these indices and ratingsof attractiveis important and ness. Althoughthe averagenesseffect deserves theoreticaltreatment in its own right(Koesabundantevidence,at least forfemales,thatfaces close to the population average are not the most attractive possible faces (Alley and Cunningham i990 and references in appendix). is necessaryto test the neoteny A different strategy contra Mushypothesis.In this case it is appropriate, selman et al., to "omit features... not correlated with fromdifferent features age." It also helps if information can be combinedto providean overallindex ofneoteny. In studies i and 2 I focuson just threemeasuresoffacial and proportions (relativeeye width,relativenose height, relativelip height)because thereare stronggroundsin on facial agingforexpectingthe the standardliterature relative dimensions of the three major facial features (eyes,nose, and lips) to change with increasingage and consistentevidence in my samples that the measures do changewith age in the expectedfashion.Alternative measures of the relativedimensionsof the threemajor facialfeatures are less satisfactory. Eye heightand width with increasing of mouth do not decrease significantly age. Eye heightgives some signs ofbeingpositivelycoroffemaleattractiveness across samrelatedwith ratings as a neoples but may be as much an expressivefeature withage; including tenous one. Nose widthis correlated it in age regressionsfor females produces an age predictorequation similarto Equation 2.1 The corresponding index of neoteny predicts attractivenessabout as

lag

I990,

I990), thereis also Langloisand Roggman

well as Equation5 (Jones I994).

Reply
Ithaca,N.Y. 14853, U.S.A. I5 vi 95
Is therea link betweenneotenyand attractiveness? Virtually all commentatorsagree that the evidence pretheproposition sentedin thispapersupports thatfemale facial neoteny is linked to male perceptionsof attractiveness. The main dissent comes from Musselman, Langlois, and Roggman,who point to evidence for aD averageness or "prototype"effect:faces with proportions close to those of the averageface are perceivedas more attractive.In testing this hypothesis it makes fromas many facial sense to incorporateinformation measurementsas possible. Thus Jonesand Hill (I9931 and Jones(n.d.) constructindices of the "averageness" of facial proportionswhich combine several hundred anameasurementsof distances between photographic
DOUG JONES

as in table 2, is a Pooling of correlationcoefficients, standardtechnique fortestinghypothesesacross multiple samples. What mattersis not the numberofsamples results but the consisforwhich there are significant tency with which males in five populations of raters neotenous featuresin the pooled samples. prefer and sensorybias. I have Why neoteny? Age,fecundity, proposed not only that there is a connectionbetween but that this facial neoteny and female attractiveness ofthe universalmale percepconnectionis a by-product women are morephysically tion thatyounger attractive than older women and that estheticresponsesto signs of aging are largelygenetic adaptations to age-related Several commentators point out changes in fecundity. potential extensions or limitations of this line of argument. I argue that human beings are anomalous in that males are more concerned with female attractiveness than vice versa, but Perusse points out that males in many primatespecies are attentiveto cyclical and seaHis point is well sonal indicatorsof female fecundity. of the evolutionary taken. A more complete treatment basis of attractionto markersof youth and fecundity
TATt-VlIIA

nr%-n.;i:Ar

a lt n -iPr.

1 r e.hQP

ih p-lr. rofop-.t11.Q

i. The equationis Age = - I68 * log[EW/FH] + 87 * log[NH/FH] + 9 5 *log[NW/FH].

744

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number S, December 1995 they are also commonly attractedto secondarysexual charactersin the female figurethat appear at the time of puberty. Finally,Symonsproposesthatthe traitsI have labeled information about female neotenous may actually carry they carry fecundityover and above the information about age. In my paper I expressmild skepticismabout this possibility,partlybecause thereis no evidence in my samples that indices offacial neotenyare correlated indicatorsof fecundity with potential non-age-related ratio.But Sysuch as age at menarcheand waist-to-hip mons's (I995) recentworkon this subjecthas persuaded thatestrome thatwe need directtestsofthepossibility on facial atratiosand parityhave effects gen/androgen of aging.2 tractiveness over and above the effects Attractivenessand morphological evolution. Brace to suggestsseveral reasons fordoubtingthat attraction on human neotenousfeaturescould have had any effect morphology via sexual selection. He claims that (i) in to the evolutionary past all women had the opportunity so therewas no scope forsexual selectionon reproduce, are not females; (2) some changes in skull morphology ofsexual readilyvisible and could not have been targets that neotenyis "a selection; (3)Shea has demonstrated bankruptconcept" in the contextof human evolution; and (4) the "probablemutationeffect" providesa sufficient explanation for declining robustness since the Middle Pleistocene. Brace's claim that all femaleshave the same opportuby an immense body of renityto reproduceis refuted ecology (Bonsearch in demographyand reproductive gaarts I983, Ellison I990). Female fecundityshows considerablevariationboth within and between socieof conties; levels of ovarianfunctionand probabilities variables, ceptiondependon a numberofenvironmental work efnutrition, includingfrequencyof intercourse, and pathogenlevels. Additionalvariancein female fort, and offspring fitnessresultsfromvariance in mortality In turn,frequenciesof intercourse, nutrisurvivorship. risks commonlydetional levels, and infantmortality and keeping pend in parton women's success in finding desirablemates. Researchin modernindustrial societies of attractiveness on a woman's demonstratesan effect of marriageand on the social status and atprobability tractiveness of her husband (reviewedin JacksonI992). Whetherquantitative research in traditionalsocieties will show similar correlationsbetween attractiveness and mating success is an open question; considerable qualitative evidence points in this direction. Studies of assortativematingcommonlyshow assortment even forthe traitsnot easily assessable by potential mates, such as lung volume and blood pressure (Spuhler I968). Presumablyassortmentresults not befemalephotographic 2. None of the Brazilianor U.S. American when or reported beingpregnant subjectshad had any children to Thus parity per se could not have contributed photographed. senin thesesamples, although in facialattractiveness differences ofparity cculdhave. suggestive facialporportions bias against sory

caveats about applying some important Laland offers Understandtheoryto human psychology. evolutionary ing how the human bodyand brainhave been shaped by about selecnatural selection oftenrequiresinferences fromthose which most of tive pressuresverydifferent may select post hoc us face today.At worst,researchers models ofPleistocenehuman or from among alternative otherape, primate,or social carnivorebehaviorwhichHowadaptivestory. evermodel best fitssome preferred safegroundin makinginferever,we are on particularly ences about the selectivepressureson mate choice with because dechanges in fecundity, respectto age-related mographicevidence suggests that humans have faced much the same relationshipbetween age of mate and of conceptionnot just throughthe relativeprobability transition Pleistocene but rightup to the demographic of the past few centuries. Symons notes that according to my hypothesisatis not adaptiveper tractionto neotenous facial features of attractionto youngerwomen. It se but a by-product is a result,in otherwords,of "sensorybias." This is not an argumentagainst the hypothesisif we accept that build ioo% accuratepercepnaturalselectionwill rarely sensorybias will be ubiquitual systemsand therefore tous. Sensory systems commonly respond to stimuli other than those to which they are adapted and often respond especially stronglyto "supernormal" stimuli stimofa target thatpresentthe distinguishing features form(Ryan I990, Enquist and Arak ulus in exaggerated to the sensory-bias tions is not an alternative argument but a variationon it. It assumes evolutionary constraints such that natural selection cannot build sensory systems that always respond to stimulus X but never to nonadaptiveor less adaptive stimuli similarto X. Alternativeexplanations.SeveralcomWhyneoteny? mentatorsconsider alternativeexplanationsforthe attractionto neoteny.One popular explanationformen's attraction to youthful featuresis that such featuresare signs of powerlessness and submissiveness. I review and some reasons forbeing skeptical of this possibility, Jankowiakoffers groundsforsupcogent ethnographic betweenbeautyand power thatthe relationship porting My is the opposite of that proposedby the hypothesis. his account of own observationsin Brazil corroborate sexuality in China. Far fromsupposing that old men involved in relationshipswith youngwomen will typiby virtueof theirage and cally dominate theirpartners experience,Brazilians often suggest that men in such are especiallyvulnerableto cuckoldry and relationships economic exploitation. to neoPerusse and Schwederpropose that attraction ofthe parentalfeeltenous features may be a by-product ings aroused by infantilefeatures,but this hypothesis does not seem to explainwhymen are moreconsistently than women. Nor to neotenous facial features attracted does it seem to explainwhy,althoughmen are attracted form the feato femalefaces thatpresentin exaggerated tures that distinguishyoung women fromold women,
I993).

from funcfitness The argument asymmetrical

JONES

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny 1745

cause people choose mates on the basis of lung volume per se but because theychoose on the basis ofcorrelated traits. Choice of partnerson the basis of perceptible imtraitsis likely to have consequences forcorrelated perceptibletraits. Shea (i988) criticizesthe hypothesisthat human beincrease in neotenyas a ings show an across-the-board result of a general slowdown in rates of morphological He also archange associated with delayedmaturation. gues thatallegedlyneotenoustraitsin adult humans are not generally homologouswith similartraitsin juvenile specific nonhumanapes. This has no bearingon whether anatomical regions have a neotenous appearance as a resultof sexual selection (or othersocial selection). Trends toward craniofacial neoteny in the past ioo,ooo years may result fromecological selection for and reducedmetabolic increasedmechanical efficiency sexual or othersocial selection,or from direccost,from Of tional mutation-Brace's probable mutation effect. these three possibilities,the last is probablythe least plausible: a strongpredictionof the last hypothesisis increasingtrait variance over time, but Frayer(I977) findsthe opposite trend,towardreducedvariance. Whethersexual selection has contributed to the evolution of human craniofacialneotenyis an open question. Brace providesno good reason to doubtit. Instead, his replydemonstrates a failureto take sexual selection this failureputs Brace in good seriously.Admittedly, the showyplumage company.When Darwin attributed of some male birdsto female choice, Wallace proposed of thatsuch plumage resultedinsteadfrom the overflow JulianHuxley arguedthat the elaborate surplusenergy. courtshipdances of some birds were not a productof of emotional excitesexual selection but a by-product ment.Mayrsuggested thatthe extraordinary complexity and diversityof male genitalia in a number of groups resultednot fromfemale choice but frompleiotropyin otherpartsof the thatgenes selected fortheireffects body producedincreasedgenitalic complexityas a side effect. More recentresearchhas made it clear thatWallace, Huxley, Mayr, and many other major figuresin had a blind spot about sexual selectheory evolutionary lar blind spot seems to have kept many biological anthropologistsfrom seriously investigatingthe sexual selection of human morphology. Attractiveness, learning,and culture.Symonsand Laland considerthe topic of variationin standardsof attractiveness. Symonsnotes thatifpeople calibratetheir to the local populationaverstandardsof attractiveness face is a neoteage-for example,if the most attractive nous version of the averageface-then standardsof attractivenesswill vary with population differences in facial proportions. Such variationwill involve learning Ache but not culture. Consistentwith this possibility, with each otherthan and Hiwi show stronger agreement with Brazilians, U.S. Americans,or Russians in stanThis agreementis more dards of facial attractiveness. the operationofa "face-averaging mechlikelyto reflect

anism" than shared culture,because the two populations have similar facial proportions but little in common culturally(Jonesand Hill I993). While habituationto local physical featuresmay account for a great deal of variation across populations, Laland rightly notes that many local preferences forexaggerated characters cannotbe explainedin thisfashion. He has pioneeredmodels ofthe coevolutionofgenesand culturally transmitted standards ofattractiveness which are likely to illuminate cross-culturaldivergencein standardsof beauty.I would add only that the theoretical bare bones of these models will need to be fleshed out with more empiricalwork on psychologicalmechanisms and culturalcontexts. Future research will further clarifythe relationship between neotenyand facial attractiveness. More generally, I suggest that the study of sexual esthetics may develop in the same fashion as the study of language. Both languageacquisition and the developmentof standards of sexual attractiveness are probablyregulatedby specialized "mental organs"shapedbynaturalselection. But both are presumably influenced as well by nonadaptive sensoryand cognitivebiases and by social factors, includingperceptionsof what is popular and what is
da cwri atPAcl wiAth
Qtdntl Q in i tQ
nTV

vi

Q% 1Q1

la"

.i

nn

Cited References
T. R., AND M. CUNNINGHAM. I99I. Averaged faces are attractive, butveryattractive facesare notaverage. Psychological Sciencee2:I 23-25. M. I994. Sexual selection. Princeton: ANDERSSON, Princeton Press. University D. P. i982. and behavior. BARASH, Sociobiology New York: NorthHolland.[LEM, JHL, LAR] Elsevier M. M. I995. Courtship and continued BARTLEY, progress: Julian Huxley'sstudieson birdbehavior. Journal oftheHistory ofBiALLEY,

tion(Eberhard I995). A simiI985, Cronin i99i, Bartley

in theagingcraniofacial R. G. I985. Growth skeleCenterforHuman Growth ton.AnnArbor: and Development, ofMichigan. University BERNDT, R. M. I95 I. Sexual behavior in western Arnhem Land. in Anthropology FundPublications Viking I6. BERRY, D. S. I99I. Attractive facesare not all created equal: Joint effects offacialbabyishness and attractiveness on social and Social Psychology perception. Personality Bulletin
BEHRENTS, ARTHUR. I986. Perceiving characterin faces:The impactofage-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological BulletinI00:3-I8. BERSCHEID, E., AND E. WALSTER. I974. Physical attractiveness.Advancesin Experimental Social Psychology 7:I57-2I5. AND M. BORGERHOFF MULDER. EdiBETZIG, L., P. TURKE, tors.I988. Human reproductive A Darwinianperbehavior: New York:Cambridge spective. University Press. BLAFFER HRDY, S., AND P. L. WHITTEN. of I987. "Patterning in Primate sexual activity," societies.EditedbyB. B. Smutset al. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.[DP] and behavior: An analyBONGAARTS, biology, j. I983. Fertility, sis of theproximate determinants. New York:AcademicPress. S. A. I986. Radiancefrom thewaters:Ideals offemiBOONE, nine beautyin Mende artand culture. New Haven: Yale UniPress. versity BERRY, I7:523-3I. D. [LEM, JHL, LAR] S., AND L. Z. MC

28:9i-i08. ology

746 1 CURRENT
BOYD,

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number 5, December 1995

ENLOW, D. H. I990.

and theevoluI985. Culture R., AND P. J. RICHERSON. ofChicagoPress.[KNL] process.Chicago:University tionary The stagesofhumanevolution. BRACE, C. L. I995. 5th edition. Prentice-Hall. Cliffs: Englewood [CLB] interthedead: Bio-cultural the quickfrom . n.d. Deriving in theemerofmosaic evolution actionand themechanism In American Anthropologist. morphology. genceof "modern" press.[CLB] BRACE, C. L., AND P. E. MAHLER. I97I. Post-Pleistocene Journal ofPhysical American changesin thehumandentition. Anthropology 34:I9I-203. AND K. D. HUNT. C. L., S. L. SMITH, I99I. "Whatbig BRACE, EditedbyM. A. Kelley in Advancesin dentalanthropology. pp. 33-57. New York:Wiley-Liss. and C. S. Larsen, [CLB] I988. The social psycholBULL, R., AND N. RUMSEY. Editors. New York:Springer-Verlag. ogyoffacial appearance. in humanmatepreferences: D. M. I989. Sex differences BUSS, Behavioral and testedin 37 cultures. hypotheses Evolutionary BrainSciencesI2:I-49. L. L., AND M. W. FELDMAN. I98I. CulCAVALLI-SFORZA, A quantitative and evolution: approach. turaltransmission Editors. I979. Evolutionary An anthropological perspecofhuman social behavior: biology Press. tive.NorthScituate:Duxbury T. H.,AND G. A. PARKER. i992. Potential CLUTTON-BROCK,
CHAGNON, N. A., AND W. IRONS.

M., AND A. ARAK. I993. Selection ofexaggerated traits byfemaleaesthetic senses.Nature36i:446-48. EUBA, T. i986. The humanimage:Some aspectsofYorubacanons ofartand beauty. NigeriaMagazine54:9-2I. FARKAS, L. G. i98i. Anthropometry ofthehead and facein ENQUIST, B. TECH, AND J. KLOTZ. ig80. Is ofthefacereliable? photogrammetry Plasticand ReconstructiveSurgery 66:346-55. [LEM, JHL,LAR] FARKAS, L. G., I. R. MUNRO, AND J. C. KOLAR. i987. "Linear in above-and below-average proportions women'sfaces,"in in medicine.EditedbyL. G. Anthropometric facialproportions FARKAS, L. G., W. BRYSON, FAUSS, R. FEINGOLD,

Jovanovich.

Facial growth. Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace

medicine. New York: Elsevier.

teeth you had Grandma! Human tooth size past and present,"

Farkas and I. R. Munro, pp. ii9-29.

wahl.Homo

des Gesichts furdie Partneri988. Zur Bedeutung

Springfield: Thomas.

on romantic attractiveness attraction. Journal ofPersonality

and Social Psychology 59:98I-93.

37:I88-2oi. R. B. I990. Gender in effects differences ofphysical

FORD, C. S., AND F. BEACH. FRAYER, D. W.

Princeton: Princeton University Press. [KNL]

reproductiverates and the operation of sexual selection. Quar-

COSMIDES,

and optimality. Editedby est on thebest: Essayson evolution MIT Press.[KNL] J.Dupre.Cambridge: and sexCRONIN, H. I99I. The ant and thepeacock: Altruism ual selection Darwin to today.New York:Cambridge from
University Press. . I993. Oh, those bonobos! Are fqmale primates the proto-

L., AND J. TOOBY. I987. "From evolution to behavior: Evolutionary psychology as the missing link," in The lat-

ReviewofBiology67:437-56. terly

American European UpperPaleolithic. Anthropologist 83: 57-73. FROMM, E. I992. 4th edition. Die Kunstdes Liebens.Muinchen:
N., AND M. MONTGOMERY. i989. Fecundability and husband'sage. Social Biology36:I46-66. G OO D A L L, j. I 99 I. Ein HerzfurSchimpansen. Reinbeck bei Rowohlt. Hamburg: [BS] and phylogeny. BelkGOULD, S. J. I977. Ontogeny Cambridge: GOLDMAN,
GOWATY,

Anthropology46:iog-2o. in the selection . i98i. Bodysize, weaponuse, and natural

I977. Metricdentalchangein theEuropean Upand Mesolithic. American Journal perPaleolithic ofPhysical

New York: Harper.

i95i. Patterns ofsexual behavior.

Ullstein.

[BS]

liberated women?ReviewofFemale choices,byMeretypical

CUNNINGHAM,

in physical M. R. I986. Measuring thephysical attractiveness: on the sociobiology offeQuasi-experiments and Social Psycholmale facialbeauty.Journal ofPersonality

dith Small (Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, I993). New York TimesBook Review,August29, p. I9. [CLB]

GREGERSEN, GREGOR,

nap Press of Harvard University Press. [CLB] P. A. i992. Evolutionary biology and feminism. Human Nature 3:2I7-49. uality. New York: F. Watts.
G.

i983. Sexual practices:The story ofhumansex-

ogy 50:9 25-35.

[LEM, JHL, LAR]

CUNNINGHAM,

assessment ofmultiple Whatdo womenwant?Facialmetric attractiveofmale facialphysical motivesin theperception 59:6I-72. and Social Psychology ness. Journal ofPersonality
[LEM, JHL, LAR]

M. R., A. P. BARBEE,

AND

C. L. PIKE.

I990.

T. i985. Anxiouspleasures:The sexual lives ofan Amazonianpeople. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress. R. R. I990. Imagesofdenigration: GRINKER, Structuring inequaland farmers in theIturiForest, itybetween foragers Zaire. American Ethnologist I7:III-30. mirror: TheimHATFIELD, E., AND S. SPRECHER. i986. Mirror, of portanceoflooks in everyday life.Albany:StateUniversity
HENRY,

DALY, M., AND M. WILSON. DARWIN,

DEGLER,

ior. Boston: Willard Grant Press.

C. R. I98I
(i871).

I983.

and behavSex, evolution,

in relation to sex. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress. York: Oxford University Press.

The descentof man, and selection

HOSIE,

New York Press. L. i96i. Some data on natural fertility. Eugenics Quarterly8:8I-9I.
J. A., H. D. ELLIS, AND N. D. HAIG.

C. N. I99I. In searchofhumannature:The decline in American social thought. New and revivalofDarwinism

DOBZHANSKY,

bell,pp. 59-86. Chicago:Aldine.[CLB] and humandiversity. StanW. I99I. Genes,culture, ford: Stanford Press.[KNL] University W. G. I985. Sexual selection and animalgenitalia. EBERHARD,
DURHAM,

New York: Columbia UniversityPress. [LEM, JHL, LAR] . I972. "Genetics and the races of man," in Sexual selecEditedbyB. Camptionand thedescentof man I87I-I97I.

T. I970.

Geneticsof theevolutionary process.

F. S. i967. Selection forskincoloramongJapanese. AmericanJournal ofPhysicalAnthropology 27:I43-5 9. K. I972. Sexual and other IMMELMAN, long-term aspectsofimin birdsand otherspecies.Advancesin theStudyof printing HULSE,

of featuredisplacement on the perception of well-known faces. Perception I7:46I-74. [LEM, JHL, LAR]

i988. The effect

VerI. I984. Die Biologiedes menschlichen haltens.Miunchen: Piper.[BS] in thepsychology H. i926. Studies ofsex. Vol. 4. PhiladelELLIS, phia: F. A. Davis. and reproductive P. I990. Human ovarian function ELLISON,
EIBL-EIBESFELDT,

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

SociobioPhysicalappearanceand gender: logical and sociocultural perspectives. Albany:StateUniversityofNew YorkPress. JAMES, W. H. I979. The causes ofthe declinein fecundability withage. Social Biology 26:330-34. in a Chinese JANKOWIAK, W. I993. Sex, death,and hierarchy account.New York:ColumbiaUnicity:An anthropological
JACKSON, L. A. i992. JOHNSTON,

Behavior 4:I47-74.

versityPress. io6.

T. D. i982. Selective in theevolucostsand benefits tionoflearning. Advancesin theStudyofBehaviori2:65V. S., AND M. FRANKLIN.

ecology: New hypotheses. American Anthropologist92:

933-5-2.

eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology I4:i83-99. D. I994. The evolutionary psychology of humfn physical JONES,

JOHNSTON,

I993. Is beautyin the

JO NE S

Sexual Selection and Facial Neoteny 1747

withbehavioral aryhypotheses data.Human Nature5:255-78. attractiveness: Resultsfrom fivepopulations. Ph.D. diss.,UniofMichigan, AnnArbor, versity Mich. [DP] T. I988. Bodystyles. POLHEMUS, Bedfordshire: Lennard. . n.d. Physicalattractiveness and thetheory ofsexual seversusnonindependent lection:Resultsfrom AnnArbor: five Museumof P RUE T T - JONES, S. I99 2. Independent populations. matechoice:Do females copyeach other? American NaturalofMichigan. In press. Anthropology, University ist I40:I000-I009. Criteria ofphysical JONES, D., AND K. HILL. I993. attractivePURCELL, D. G., AND A. L. STEWART. I988. The faceness in fivepopulations. Human Nature 4:27i-96. detection effect: Configuration enhancesdetection. D. I994. Evolutionary Perception KENRICK. social psychology: Fromsexual and Psychophysics 43:355-66. [LEM, JHL, LAR] selectionto social cognition. Advancesin Experimental Social Psychology 3I:75-I2I. RHODES, G. I986. Memory forlateralasymmetries in wellJ. I990. Koinophilia knownfaces:Evidenceforconfigural KOESLAG, groups sexual creatures intospeinformation in memory offaces.Memory and Cognition I4:209-I9. cies,promotes representations stasis,and stabilizessocial behavior. Journal of Theoretical BiologyI44:I5-35. [LEM, JHL, LAR] K. N. I994. Sexual selection LALAND, witha culturally Merkmale transmit- RIEDL, B. I. M. I990. Morphologisch-metrische des tedmating preference. mannlichen und weiblichen Theoretical Population Biology Partnerleitbildes in ihrer Bedeutungfurdie Wahldes Ehegatten. Homo 4I:72-85. 45:I-I5. P. C. I974. Foundations LANGLOIS. I990. Attractive faces ROSENBLATT, ofinterpersonal atJ. H., AND L. A. ROGGMAN. are onlyaverage. traction. New York: Academic Press. [KNL] Psychological Science i:ii5-2i. [LEM, JHL, LAR] "Sexual selection, RYAN, M. J. I990. and sensensory systems, in Oxford R. J. CASEY, soryexploitation," in evolutionary LANGLOIS, J. H., L. A. ROGGMAN, AND J. M. surveys biology, pp. I57-95. Oxford: RITTER. I987. Infant Oxford preferences forattractive University faces:RudiPress. mentsofa stereotype? .I995. Developmental Offsetting Psychology 23:363-69. advantages. ReviewofSexual selection, by M. B. Andersson AND L. MUSSELMAN. (Princeton: Princeton LANGLOIS, J. H., L. A. ROGGMAN, University Press, and whatis not average I994. Whatis average aboutattractive Science 267:7I2-I3. I994). Science 5:2I4-20. faces?Psychological S E L I G M A N, M. E. P. I970. On thegenerality [LEM, JHL, LAR] ofthelaws of learning. W. F., JR., AND K. H. MAKIELSKI. Psychological LARRABEE, Review77:406-I8. I993. Surgical J. I984. Configural offacesin theleftand anatomyoftheface. New York:RavenPress. SERGENT, processing theright cerebral K. I943. Die angeborenen Journal hemispheres. LORENZ, Formen ErfahofExperimental moglicher PsyHuman Perception chology: rung. and Performance Zeitschrift farTierpsychologie 5:235-409. IO:554-72. [LEM, MC CABE, v. I988. "Facial proportions, JHL, LAR] perceived age,and carein Social and appliedaspectsofperceiving in humanevolution: giving," faces.EdSHEA, B. j. I989. Heterochrony The case itedbyT. R. Alley,pp. 89-95. Hillsdale,N.J.:Lawrence forneoteny reconsidered. YearbookofPhysical ErlAnthropology baumAssociates. 32:69-ioi. [CLB] SIGALL, MC CALL, R. B., AND C. B. KENNEDY. I980. Attention of4H., AND L. LANDY. I973. Radiating beauty:The efmonth-old to discrepancy fectsofhavinga physically infants and babyishness. attractive Journal partner on person of perception.Journal Child Psychology and Social Psychology Experimental ofPersonality 29:I89-2oi. 28:2i8-24. MC ARTHUR, L. Z., AND K. APATOW. of I983-84. Impressions [BS] adults.Social Cognition e2:3I5-42. D. I993a. Adaptive offemale baby-faced SINGH, significance attracphysical tiveness:Role ofwaist-to-hip B. i987 (i929). The sexual lifeofsavagesin ratio.Journal MALINOWSKI. and ofPersonality Social Psychology Melanesia: An ethnographic accountofcourtNorth-Western 65:293-307. and family ship,marriage, .I993b. Bodyshapeand women'sattractiveness: The critilifeamongthenativesoftheTrobrical roleofwaist-to-hip and Islands,British New Guinea.Boston:BeaconPress. ratio.Human Nature 4:297-32I. B. B., AND R. W. SMUTS. MARK, L. S., R. E. SHAW, AND J. B. PITTENGER. and SMUTS, I988. "NatuI993. Male aggression ral constraints, sexual coercion offemales in non-human scales ofanalysis, and information fortheperand other primates mammals:Evidenceand implications. Advancesin theStudy ceptionofgrowing faces,"in Social and appliedaspectsofperofBehavior22:I-63. ceiving faces.EditedbyT. R. Alley,pp. II-49. Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Theprinciples SOKAL, R. R., AND F. J. ROLF. I969. Biometry: J. i982. Evolution and practiceofstatistics in biological MAYNARD and the theory research. San Francisco: SMITH, ofgames. W. H. Freeman. Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University E. I972. "Sexual selectionand natural in Sex- SPUHLER, J. N. I968. Assortative withrespect MAYR, to physimating selection," cal characteristics. ual selectionand thedescentofman I87I-I97I. EditedbyB. EugenicsQuarterly i5:128-40. K. B. I99 2. Faces in theforest: The endangered STRIER, Campbell, pp. 87-I04. Chicago:Aldine.[CLB] muruAND U. LARSEN. qui monkeys of Brazil. New York: OxfordUniversityPress. MENKEN, J., J. TRUSSELL, I986. Age and inScience233:I389-94. fertility. [CLB] C. I977. Individual age changes of the morphological I99I. CONSPEC and MORTON, J., AND M. H. JOHNSON. SUSANNE, CONLEARN: A two-process ofinfant characteristics. Journal facerecognition. theory ofHuman Evolution 6:I8I-89. D. I979. Review98:I64-8I. The evolution Psychological [LEM, JHL, LAR] SYMONS, Oxford: ofhumansexuality. Oxford Press. MUNN, N. D. I986. The fameof Gawa: A symbolic University studyof in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) socivalue transformation I995. ofthebeholder: "Beautyis in the adaptations The ofhumanfemalesexualattractiveety. New York: Cambridge University Press. evolutionary psychology M. T. i962. Evolutionary ness,"in Sexual nature/sexual culture. Editedby Paul R. AbNEWMAN, changesin bodysize and head form in American ramsonand StevenD. Pinkerton, Indians. American pp. 8o-ii8. Chicago:UniverAnthropologist sityofChicagoPress.[DS] 64:237-57. G. I985. Thephysicalattractiveness humanmatepreference. New THELEN, T. H. I983. Minority-type PATZER, phenomena. [BS] R. L. I97I. "Parental York:PlenumPress. and sexual selecinvestment TRIVERS, D. I., K. MAY, AND S. YOSHIKAWA. tion,"in Sexual selectionand thedescentofman, I87I-I97I. PERRETT, I994. Facial EditedbyB. H. Campbell, offemaleattractiveness. Nature368: pp. I36-79. Chicago:Aldine. shapeand judgements H. I968. "The social perception ofskincolorin WAGATSUMA, 239-42. in Colorand race. Editedby J.H. Franklin, D. I993. Japan," Culturaland reproductive successin modern PERUSSE, pp. i29-65. Boston:Houghton Mifflin. at theproximate societies:Testingtherelationship and ultiF. I945. The brachycephalization matelevels.Behavioraland BrainSciencesi6:267-322. ofrecent WEIDENREICH, man[DP] Journal Mate choicein modern societies:Testing I994. evolution- kind.Southwestern ofAnthropology I:I-54.

748

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 36, Number s, December 1995

E. i92i. The history ofhumanmarriage. Vol. London:Macmillan. G. C. I975. Sex and evolution. WILLIAMS, Princeton: Princeton Press. University WESTERMARCK,

NewperA. B. I976. Womenof value,men ofrenown: ofTexas Austin:University exchange. in Trobriand spectives Press. and social beM. J. I99I. "Sexual selection WEST-EBERHARD, EditedbyL. Tigerand in Man and beast revisited. havior," D.C.: Smithsonian Instipp. I59-72. Washington, M. Robinson, tution.
WEINER,

I.

YOUNG,

in faceperception. figural information Perception I6:747-59.

[LEM, JHL, LAR]

A. W.,

D.

HELLAWELL,

AND

D.

C. HAY.

I987. Con-

Calendar
I996

Tamil Nadu, InConference, ation, 4th International and dia. Theme: Globalization, Self-Determination, in Development. Write:PeterPenz, Faculty Justice 4700 Studies,York University, of Environmental Keele St., NorthYork, Ont., Canada M3J IP3. April I 8-20. Delta Blues Symposium:The Blues II, inArk., State University, conference, terdisciplinary U.S.A. Deadline forabstractsJanuary i5, I996. Write:Delta SymposiumCommittee,Departmentof Englishand Philosophy,P.O. Box I890, Arkansas Ark. 72467-I890, State University, State University, or U.S.A. (e-mail: [email protected] [email protected]). May 29-June 2. 3d EuropeanEthnopharmacological of the Conference Colloquium and iSt International and Historyof Health and Disease, Anthropology Genoa, Italy. Write: Comitato OrganizzazioneEtnoIstitutodi Antropologia Antropologia, farmacologia

DevelopmentEthics AssociJanuary i-8. International

Fisica, Universitadi Genova, Via Balbi, 4, i6i26 Genova, Italy (fax: [39] I0 2095987). me 13-I6. gth International Oral HistoryConference, Goteborg, Sweden. Theme: Communicating Experience.Deadline forabstractsDecember I. Write: Sven B. Ek or Birgitta SkarinFrykman, Department of Ethnology, of Goteborg, University VastraHamngatan 3, S-4II I 7 Goteborg,Sweden. eptember8-14. Lithic Technology:FromRaw Material Procurement to Tool Production, workshopin connectionwith the I 3th International Congressof the Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli,Italy. Write:Sarah Milliken, c/o Segreteria XIII CongressoU.I.S.P.P., Via Marchesi, I, 47ioo Forli,Italy (fax: [39] 543 35805). )ctober19-20. Interface '95: 2oth Annual Humanities and TechnologyConference, Atlanta,Ga., U.S.A. Write:JulieNewell, Social and International Studies, SouthernCollege of Technology,100 S. Marietta Parkway, Marietta, Ga. 30060-2986, U.S.A.

Errata
In Manzi and Passarello's reporton the Neandertals size and shape values forthe leftthirdmolar ofBreuil 3 fromGrotta Breuil in the April issue (CA 36:355-66), shouldhavebeen I I 9.9 and I I 3.9 respectively. to table i (p. 36i) were overlooked;the two corrections