ArticleScientific reports2021
An exploratory, cross-cultural study on perception of putative cyclical changes in facial fertility cues.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is the human face a biomarker of health? - A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Combined perceptual and chemical analyses show no compelling evidence for ovulatory cycle shifts in women's axillary odour.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- No evidence that sociosexual orientation moderates effects of conception probability on women's preferences for male facial masculinity.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although many researchers have argued that facial traits evolved as honest cues to women's current fertility (possibly via changes in facial femininity), evidence that women's facial attractiveness is significantly, positively related to probability of conception throughout menstrual cycle is mixed. These mixed results could reflect differences among studies in the methods used to assess facial attractiveness (i.e., forced choice versus rating-scale methods), differences in how fertility was assessed, differences in perceiver characteristics (e.g., their own attractiveness), and facial preferences possibly being moderated by the characteristics of the living environment. Consequently, the current study investigated the putative effect of cyclical changes in fertility on women's facial attractiveness and femininity (1) using forced choice and rating-scale method, (2) conducting both ovulation tests and repeated daily measures of estradiol assessing the conception probability, (3) based on a culturally diverse sample of perceivers, while (4) controlling for inter-individual variation. Although we found some limited evidence that women's faces became more attractive when conception probability increased, these effects differed depending on the methods used to assess both attractiveness and fertility. Moreover, where statistically significant effects were observed, the effect sizes were extremely small. Similarly, there was little robust evidence that perceivers' characteristics reliably predicted preferences for fertility cues. Collectively, these results suggest that mixed results in previous studies examining cyclical fluctuation in women's facial attractiveness are unlikely to reflect inter-cultural differences and are more likely to reflect differences in the methods used to assess facial attractiveness and fertility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.