Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:39:22.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symmetry is sexy: reply to Hodgson's ‘Symmetry and humans’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Robert P. Burriss
Robert P. Burriss*
Affiliation:
*Department of Anthropology, Carpenter Building, The Pennsylvania State University, PA 16802, USA (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his contribution to the Antiquity debate over the viability of Kohn and Mithen's 'Sexy Handaxe Theory' (1999),Hodgson (2009: 195-8) asserts that 'symmetry is not connected with health and thus cannot have served as a sign of genetic worth'. Because I find his interpretation of the current literature on symmetry and its relationship to health and attractiveness to be flawed, I cannot accept Hodgson's argument. I address each of my concerns below in the first part of this response. I also remain unconvinced that, even if Hodgson's assertion were supported by the literature, it would necessarily follow that symmetry in manufactured objects, including Acheulean handaxes, cannot signal 'sexiness'. In the second part of my response I explain why I consider this to be so.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 83 , Issue 322 , December 2009 , pp. 1170 - 1175
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Eisa, E., Egan, D. & Wassersug, R.. 2004. Fluctuating asymmetry and low back pain. Human Evolution and Behavior 25: 31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apicella, C. L. & Feinberg, D. R.. 2009. Voice pitch alters mate-choice-relevant perception in hunter-gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 276: 1077–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borgia, G. 1995. Complex male display and female choice in the spotted bowerbird: specialized functions for different bower decorations. Animal Behaviour 49: 1291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T. & Grammer, K.. 2006. Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences 41: 491–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlow, F. B., Armijo-Prewitt, T., Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R.. 1997. Fluctuating asymmetry and psychometric intelligence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 264: 823–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garver-Apgar, C.E., Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R.. 2008. Hormonal correlates of women's mid-cycle preference for the scent of symmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior 29: 223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grammer, K. & Thornhill, R.. 1994. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108: 233–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodgson, D. 2009. Symmetry and humans: reply to Mithen's ‘Sexy Handaxe Theory’. Antiquity 83: 195–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. K. & Montgomerie, R.. 2001. Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of ‘quality’ in women and men. Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 93–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, B. C., Debruine, L. M. & Little, A. C.. 2007. The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Perception & Psychophysics 69: 1273–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I.. 2001. Measured facial asymmetry and perceptual judgements of attractiveness and health. Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 417–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L., Debruine, L. M., Feinberg, D. R., Smith, M. J. Law, Cornwell, R. E., Moore, F. R. & Perrett, D. I.. 2005a. Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone level is high. Hormones and Behavior 48: 283–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L., Cornwell, R. E., Feinberg, D. R., Tiddeman, B. P., Whiten, S., Pitman, R. M., Hillier, S. G., Burt, D. M., Stirrat, M. R., Smith, M. J. Law & Moore, F. R.. 2005b. Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 272: 347–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koehler, N., Rhodes, G. & Simmons, L. W.. 2002. Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely? Animal Behaviour 64: 233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, M. & Mithen, S.. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowner, R. 1996. Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgement in developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22: 662–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A. & Musselman, L.. 1994. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces. Psychological Science 5: 214–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, A. C. & Jones, B. C.. 2003. Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 270: 1759–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, A. C., Apicella, C. L. & Marlowe, F. W.. 2007a. Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: data from the UK and the Hadza, an isolated group of hunter-gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 274: 3113–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S. & Perrett, D. I.. 2001. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 268: 39–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I.. 2007b. Preferences for symmetry in faces change across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology 76: 209–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lycett, J. E. & Dunbar, R.I.M.. 2000. Mobile phones as lekking devices among human males. Human Nature 11: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machin, A. J. 2008. Why handaxes just aren't that sexy: a response to Kohn & Mithen (1999). Antiquity 82: 761–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mealey, L., Bridgestock, R. & Townsend, G. C.. 1999. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 151–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milne, B. J., Belsky, J., Poulton, R., Thomson, W. M., Caspi, A. & Kieser, J.. 2003. Fluctuating asymmetry and physical health among young adults. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S. 2008. ‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’. Antiquity 82: 766–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noor, F. & Evans, D. C.. 2003. The effect of facial symmetry on perceptions of personality and attractiveness. Journal of Research in Personality 37: 339–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A. & Edwards, R.. 1999. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 20: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puts, D. A. 2005. Mating context and menstrual phase affect women's preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 388–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A. & Byatt, G.. 1999. Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science 10: 52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. & Sumich, A.. 1998. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 5: 659–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., Mckay, R. & Akamatsu, S.. 2001a. Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: in search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception 30: 611–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A. & Mckay, R.. 2001b. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rupp, H. A., James, T. W., Ketterson, E. D., Sengelaub, D. R., Janssen, E. & Haiman, J. R.. In press. Neural activation in the orbitofrontal cortex in response to male faces increases during the follicular phase. Hormones and Behavior doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sefcek, J. A. & King, J. E.. 2007. Chimpanzee facial symmetry: a biometric measure of chimpanzee health. American Journal of Primatology 69: 1257–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackelford, T. K. & Larsen, R. J.. 1997. Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 456–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W.. 2006. Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior 27: 131–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R. & Møller, A. P.. 1997. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biological Reviews 72: 497–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waitt, C. & Little, A. C.. 2006. Preferences for symmetry in conspecific facial shape among Macaca mulatta. International Journal of Primatology 27: 133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waynforth, D. 1998. Fluctuating asymmetry and human male life-history traits in rural Belize. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 265: 1497–1501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, J. M. & Manning, J. T.. 1996. Fluctuating asymmetry and age in children: evolutionary implications for the control of developmental stability. Journal of Human Evolution 30: 529–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojcieszek, J. M., Nicholls, J. A. & Goldizen, A. W.. 2007. Stealing behavior and the maintenance of a visual display in the satin bowerbird. Behavioral Ecology 18: 689–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar