» Articles » PMID: 23560102

Geographic Variation in Chin Shape Challenges the Universal Facial Attractiveness Hypothesis

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2013 Apr 6
PMID 23560102
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The universal facial attractiveness (UFA) hypothesis proposes that some facial features are universally preferred because they are reliable signals of mate quality. The primary evidence for this hypothesis comes from cross-cultural studies of perceived attractiveness. However, these studies do not directly address patterns of morphological variation at the population level. An unanswered question is therefore: Are universally preferred facial phenotypes geographically invariant, as the UFA hypothesis implies? The purpose of our study is to evaluate this often overlooked aspect of the UFA hypothesis by examining patterns of geographic variation in chin shape. We collected symphyseal outlines from 180 recent human mandibles (90 male, 90 female) representing nine geographic regions. Elliptical Fourier functions analysis was used to quantify chin shape, and principle components analysis was used to compute shape descriptors. In contrast to the expectations of the UFA hypothesis, we found significant geographic differences in male and female chin shape. These findings are consistent with region-specific sexual selection and/or random genetic drift, but not universal sexual selection. We recommend that future studies of facial attractiveness take into consideration patterns of morphological variation within and between diverse human populations.

Citing Articles

Clinical Outcomes and Safety Profile of a Dextranomer-Hyaluronic Acid Hybrid Filler: A Case Series Analysis.

Ruiz N, Lopez R, Marques R, Fontenete S J Cosmet Dermatol. 2024; 24(1):e16653.

PMID: 39502010 PMC: 11743303. DOI: 10.1111/jocd.16653.


Sex classification of 3D skull images using deep neural networks.

Noel L, Fat S, Causey J, Dong W, Stubblefield J, Szymanski K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):13707.

PMID: 38877045 PMC: 11178899. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61879-6.


A novel method of chin augmentation with improved intraoral horizontal middle incision.

Han X, Chen X, Ji D, Hu S Arch Med Sci. 2022; 18(6):1718-1722.

PMID: 36457978 PMC: 9710280. DOI: 10.5114/aoms/155184.


Decoding the Human Face: Progress and Challenges in Understanding the Genetics of Craniofacial Morphology.

Naqvi S, Hoskens H, Wilke F, Weinberg S, Shaffer J, Walsh S Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2022; 23:383-412.

PMID: 35483406 PMC: 9482780. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-120121-102607.


Facial and body sexual dimorphism are not interconnected in the Maasai.

Butovskaya M, Rostovtseva V, Mezentseva A J Physiol Anthropol. 2022; 41(1):3.

PMID: 34996526 PMC: 8740871. DOI: 10.1186/s40101-021-00276-8.


References
1.
Lie H, Rhodes G, Simmons L . Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Evolution. 2008; 62(10):2473-86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00478.x. View

2.
Garvin H, Ruff C . Sexual dimorphism in skeletal browridge and chin morphologies determined using a new quantitative method. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012; 147(4):661-70. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22036. View

3.
Weaver T, Roseman C, Stringer C . Were neandertal and modern human cranial differences produced by natural selection or genetic drift?. J Hum Evol. 2007; 53(2):135-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.03.001. View

4.
Athreya S . Patterning of geographic variation in Middle Pleistocene Homo frontal bone morphology. J Hum Evol. 2006; 50(6):627-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.11.005. View

5.
Ichim I, Swain M, Kieser J . Mandibular biomechanics and development of the human chin. J Dent Res. 2006; 85(7):638-42. DOI: 10.1177/154405910608500711. View