2015 | 6 | 1 | 129-140
Article title

Facial features and social attractiveness: preferences of Bosnian female students

Title variants
Languages of publication
This research aimed at testing multiple fitness hypothesis of attraction, investigating relationship between male facial characteristic and female students' reported readiness to engage in various social relations. A total of 27 male photos were evaluated on five dimensions on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from -3 to 3, by convenient sample of 90 female students of University of Sarajevo. The dimensions were: desirable to date – not desirable to date; desirable to marry – not desirable to marry; desirable to have sex with – not desirable to have sex with; desirable to be a friend – not desirable to be a friend; attractive - not attractive. Facial metric measurements of facial features such as distance between the eyes, smile width and height were performed using AutoCad. The results indicate that only smile width positively correlates with desirability of establishing friendship, whilst none of the other characteristics correlates with any of the other dimensions. This leads to the conclusion that motivation to establish various social relations cannot be reduced to mere physical appearance, mainly facial features, but many other variables yet to be investigated.
Physical description
  • International University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Psychology Program, Hrasnicka cesta 11; 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • International University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Psychology Program, Hrasnićka cesta 11; 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • International University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Psychology Program, Hrasnićka cesta 11; 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • International University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Psychology Program, Hrasnićka cesta 11; 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • International University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Psychology Program, Hrasnićka cesta 11; 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Berry, D. S., & Brownlow, S. (1989). Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 266–279.
  • Booth, A., & Dabbs, J. (1993). Testosterone and men’s marriages. Social Forces, 72, 463–477.Boothroyd, L.G., Jones, B.C., Burt, D., & Perrett, D.I. (2007). Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1161–1173.
  • Brown, Jonathon D., Novick, Natalie J., Lord, Kelley A., & Richards, Jane M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals.
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 717-727.
  • Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
  • Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925–935.
  • Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What Do Women Want? Facialmetric Assessment of Multiple Motives in the Perception of Male Facial Physical Attractiveness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59(1), 61-72.
  • Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Wu, C., Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1995). Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279.
  • Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of personality & Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.
  • Franklin, R., & Adams, R. (2010). The two sides of beauty: Laterality and the duality of facial attractiveness. Brain and Cognition, 72, 300 - 305.
  • Furnham, A., Mistry, D., & McClelland, A. (2004). The influence of age of the face and the waist to hip ratio on judgments of female attractiveness. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 1171–1185.
  • Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Human oestrus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275, 991–1000.Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.
  • Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Feinberg, D.R., Penton-Voak, I.S., Tiddeman, B.P., & Perrett, D.I. (2004). The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evolution & Human Behavior, 25, 24–30.
  • Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Law Smith, M. J. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 37, 78–84.
  • Karraker, K., & Stern, M. (1990). Infant Physical Attractiveness and Facial Expression: Effects on Adult Perceptions. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 371-385.
  • Kelly, D. J., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K., Ge, L., & Pascalis, O. (2007). The otherrace effect develops during infancy. Psychological Science, 18, 1084-1089.
  • Kruger, D. J. (2006). Male facial masculinity influences attributions of personality and reproductive strategy. Personal Relationships, 13(4), 451-463.
  • Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larsen, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta–analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
  • Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27, 79–84.
  • Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Rieser-Danner, L. A., & Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype. Developmental Psychology, 23, 363–369.
  • Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1095–1100.
  • Marlowe, C. M., Schneider, S. L., & Nelson, C. E. (1996). Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 11–21.
  • Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2004). Facial appearance and impressions of credibility: The effects of facial babyishness and age on person perception. International Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 276-289.
  • McArthur, L. Z., & Apatow, K. (1983–84). Impressions of baby-faced adults. Social Cognition, 2, 315–342.Mueller, U., Mazur, A. (1997). Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality. Behav Ecol, 8(5),569 – 579.
  • Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766.
  • Penton-Voak, I. S., Jacobson, A., & Trivers, R. (2004). Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 355–370.
  • Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D., Burt, M., Koyabashi, T., & Murray, L. K. (1999). Female preferences for male faces change cyclically. Nature, 399, 741–742.
  • Perrett, D. I. (2005). 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 Behaviour, 48, 283–290.
  • Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowland, D. R., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.
  • Principe, C. P., & Langlois, J. H. (2012). Shifting the Prototype: Experience with Faces Influences Affective and Attractiveness Preferences. Social Cognition, 30(1), 109-120.
  • Rubenstein, A.J., Langlois, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes, & L.A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (Advances in Visual Cognition Vol. 1, pp. 1–33). Westport, CT: Ablex
  • Rubenstein, A. J., Kalakanis, L., & Langlois, J.H. (1999). Infant preferences for attractive faces: A cognitive explanation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 848–855.
  • Schacht, A., Werheid, K., & Sommer, W. (2008). The appraisal of facial beauty is rapid but not mandatory Cognitive, Affective. Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 132-142.
  • Smith, F. G., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., Welling, L. L. M., Vukovic, J., & Conway, C. A. (2009). Hormonal contraceptive use and perceptions of trust modulate the effect of relationship context on women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 195–210.
  • Thompson, A. E., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (2013). The relationship between men's facial masculinity and women's judgments of value as a potential romantic partner. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 22(1), 5-12.
  • Watkins, C. (2012). Reproductive ambition predicts partnered, but not unpartnered, women's preferences for masculine men. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 103(3), 317-329.
  • Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (1992). Impressions of babyfaced individuals across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1143-1152.
  • Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to ‘‘bad genes’’ and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167–185.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.