Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 973–981 | Cite as

Sex Differences in Attraction to Familiar and Unfamiliar Opposite-Sex Faces: Men Prefer Novelty and Women Prefer Familiarity

  • Anthony C. Little
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
  • Benedict C. Jones
Original Paper

Abstract

Familiarity is attractive in many types of stimuli and exposure generally increases feelings of liking. However, men desire a greater number of sexual partners than women, suggesting a preference for novelty. We examined sex differences in preferences for familiarity. In Study 1 (N = 83 women, 63 men), we exposed individuals to faces twice and found that faces were judged as more attractive on the second rating, reflecting attraction to familiar faces, with the exception that men’s ratings of female faces decreased on the second rating, demonstrating attraction to novelty. In Studies 2 (N = 42 women, 28 men) and 3 (N = 51 women, 25 men), exposure particularly decreased men’s ratings of women’s attractiveness for short-term relationships and their sexiness. In Study 4 (N = 64 women, 50 men), women’s attraction to faces was positively related to self-rated similarity to their current partner’s face, while the effect was significantly weaker for men. Potentially, men’s attraction to novelty may reflect an adaptation promoting the acquisition of a high number of sexual partners.

Keywords

Attractiveness Face processing Familiarity Preference Novelty Sex differences 

References

  1. Benson, P. J., & Perrett, D. I. (1993). Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception, 22, 257–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and effect: Overview and meta-analysis of research 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckingham, G., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Welling, L. L. M., Conway, C. A., Tiddeman, B. P., & Jones, B. C. (2006). Visual adaptation to masculine and feminine faces influences generalized preferences and perceptions of trustworthiness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeBruine, L. M. (2004). Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 271, 2085–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Unger, L., Little, A. C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2007). Dissociating averageness and attractiveness: Attractive faces are not always average. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1420–1430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, A. E. (1962). Effects of stimulus variation on sexual satiation in male rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 614–620.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Galton, F. J. (1878). Composite portraits. Nature, 18, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of non-face averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Little, A. C. (2007). The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1273–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelley, J. L., Graves, J. A., & Magurran, A. E. (1999). Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies. Nature, 401, 661–662.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallamm, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces. Psychological Science, 5, 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leopold, D. A., O’Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., & Blanz, V. (2001). Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 89–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Leopold, D. A., Rhodes, G., Muller, K. M., & Jeffery, L. (2005). The dynamics of visual adaptation to faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 272, 897–904.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Light, L. L., Hollander, S., & Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2005). Sex-contingent face after-effects suggest distinct neural populations code male and female faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 272, 2283–2287.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Little, A. C., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2002). The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male facial attractiveness. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 451–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2008). Symmetry and sexual dimorphism in human faces: Interrelated preferences suggest both signal quality. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 902–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans: Partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., Schmidt, N., … Barrett, L. (2002). Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 269, 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of mere exposure effects in social stimuli. Social Cognition, 19, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Clifford, C. W. G., & Nakayama, K. (2003). Fitting the mind to the world: Face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects. Psychological Science, 14, 558–566.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Jaquet, E., Winkler, C., & Clifford, C. W. G. (2004). Orientation-contingent face aftereffects and implications for face-coding mechanisms. Current Biology, 14, 2119–2123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 870–883.Google Scholar
  34. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  35. Webster, M. A., Kaping, D., Mizokami, Y., & Duhamel, P. (2004). Adaptation to natural facial categories. Nature, 428, 557–561.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson, J. R., Kuehn, R. E., & Beach, F. A. (1963). Modification in sexual behavior of male rats produced by changing stimulus female. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56, 636–644.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony C. Little
    • 1
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
    • 2
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  2. 2.Institute of Neuroscience and PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations