Geographic Variation in Chin Shape Challenges the Universal Facial Attractiveness Hypothesis

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.

Our Outcomes of Augmentation Mentoplasty with Solid Silicone

“…The evaluation stage of the patients, the treatment plan, the surgical procedure to be performed, the possible complications, and the patient's followup are current issues for mentoplasty. Age, gender, race, cultural differences, and comorbid causes are factors in the decision of mentoplasty (18,19). While women tend to have narrower and smaller jaw structure, men have the tendency to have rounder, wider, and square-shaped face structures.…”

Symphyseal surface strain during in vitro human mandibular wishboning

“…From a methodological perspective, investigations of the chin have typically fallen into one of the following categories: 1) purely theoretical, using models based on real mandibles but others manipulated into chinless forms (e.g., Ichim et al, 2006a, 2007; Gröning et al, ), 2) theoretical while using measures from a sample of actual mandibles and making intraspecific comparisons (e.g., Dobson and Trinkaus, ; Holton et al, ), or 3) experimental, but involving comparisons with theoretical optima (this study; DuBrul and Sicher, ). The second category offers interesting opportunities because—while all modern humans have chins—there is a great deal of variation in modern human chin size and shape (Thayer and Dobson, ). Future functional investigations of the chin may benefit from taking advantage of this variation.…”

Physical Appearance Anxiety and Social Relations

“…Moreover, treatments were seek of participants to treat their discontent in their double chins (Bhojwani, 2016). In the first place, the shape of the chin was not a universal in the sense of strict because there were a notable disparity between regions of geographic of men and women (Thayer & Dobson, 2013). Hence, physical appearance anxiety specifically the chin has an influence in terms with social relations.…”