2004
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0174
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle

Abstract: The lack of obvious visible manifestations of ovulation in human females, compared with the prominent sexual swellings of many primates, has led to the idea that human ovulation is concealed. While human ovulation is clearly not advertised to the same extent as in some other species, we show here that both men and women judge photographs of women's faces that were taken in the fertile window of the menstrual cycle as more attractive than photographs taken during the luteal phase. This indicates the existence o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
205
2
16

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 231 publications
(238 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
15
205
2
16
Order By: Relevance
“…Recent investigations have shown that near peak fertility, women's faces are not only rated as more attractive by observers, but are also characteristically more feminine in appearance (Oberzaucher et al, 2012;Puts et al, 2013;Roberts et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent investigations have shown that near peak fertility, women's faces are not only rated as more attractive by observers, but are also characteristically more feminine in appearance (Oberzaucher et al, 2012;Puts et al, 2013;Roberts et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following this, they were asked to record a 1 min video, also capturing head and shoulders, in which they were asked to describe their most recent holiday (videos were edited to 15 s and muted when shown to female raters). Although some face-rating studies crop images to control for influences of hairstyle and clothing cues (e.g., Roberts et al, 2004), we did not do this here to maintain consistency with the video images. Note, however, that any confounding influence of clothing or hairstyle might reduce, but cannot enhance, a relationship between the phenotypic traits under study, particularly between the effect of odor and behavior; hence, the reported results likely underestimate the true underlying correlations.…”
Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each image was normalised on the inter-pupillary distance (Fink et al 2001) and digitally masked so that only the face was visible, obscuring potentially confounding information about hairstyle and clothing with plain black shading (e.g. Roberts et al 2004). Face images had a resolution of 1600 × 1200 pixels and were presented to raters with an on-screen face size of approximately 12 × 18 cm.…”
Section: Stimulimentioning
confidence: 99%