Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 104–117 | Cite as

Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgements of attractiveness

  • I. S. Penton- Voak
  • D. I. Perrett
  • J. W. Peirce
Article

Abstract

Anecdotally, spouses are often said to resemble one another. This study investigates the effects of similarity between participants and stimuli on judgements of facial attractiveness: does “like prefer like”? Using computer graphic techniques, opposite sex facial stimuli were generated from subjects' photographs. Experiment 1 showed a correlation between attractiveness and similarity but the effect can be explained by the attractiveness of average faces. Beyond this, there was a trend for individual subjects to rate opposite sex images with a similar face shape to their own face as more attractive than other subjects. Experiment 2 allowed subjects to interactively manipulate an opposite sex facial image along a continuum from a self-similar shape, through an average face shape, to a face with opposite characteristics. No significant preferences for self-similar or opposite characteristics were found. Preferences for average faces are stronger than preferences for self-similar faces.

Keywords

Current Psychology Japanese Quail Facial Attractiveness Attractiveness Rating Male Face 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allison, D.B., Neale, M.C., Kezis, M.I., Alfonso, V.C., Heshka, S., and Heymsfield, S.B. (1996). Assortative mating for relative weight: genetic implications. Behavior Genetics, 26,103–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateson, P. (1982). Preferences for cousins in Japanese Quail. Nature 295, 236–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, P. (1983). Optimal outbreeding. In: Mate Choice, P. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 257–277.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, P. (1988). Preferences for close relations in Japanese Quail. H. Ouellet. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Acta XIX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici, 1, 961–972.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, P.J. and Perrett, D.I. (1992). Face to face with the perfect image. New Scientist, 133, 32–35.Google Scholar
  6. Berscheld, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., and Walster, G.W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: a test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burley, N.(1983). The meaning of assortative mating. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4,191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, P.J. and Spuhler, J.N. (1959). Differential fertility in relation to body dimensions. Human Biology, 31,121–137.Google Scholar
  9. Dawkins, R. (1979). Twelve misunderstandings of kin selection. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 51, 184–200.Google Scholar
  10. D'Udine, B. and Alleva, E. (1981). Early experience and sexual preferences in rodents. In: Mate Choice, P. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 311–330.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, E. and Guttman, R. (1982). Mate selection in man: Evidence, theory, and outcome. Social Biology, 31, 243–276.Google Scholar
  12. Grammer, K. and Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffiths, R.W. and Kunz, P.R. (1973). Assortative mating: A study of physiognomic homogamy. Social Biology, 20,448–4153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, C.T., Rubin, Z., and Peplau, L.A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal Social Issues, 32, 147–168.Google Scholar
  15. Hinsz, V.B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holmes, W.G. and Sherman, P.W. (1983). Kin recognition in animals. American Scientist, 71,46–55.Google Scholar
  17. Immelman, K. (1975). Ecological significance of imprinting and early learning. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,6, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny. Current Anthropology, 36, 723–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kendrick, K.M., Hinton. M.R., and Atkins, K. (1998). Mothers may irreversibly determine male social and sexual preferences. Nature, 395, 229–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Langlois, J.H. and Roggman. L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malina, R.M., Selby, H. A. Buschang, P.H., Aronson, W. L., & Little, B.B. (1983). Assortative mating for phenotypic characteristics in a Zapotec community in Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Biosocial Science, 15, 273–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ober, C, Hyslop, T., Elias, S., Weitkamp, L.R., and Hauck, W.W. (1998). Human Leukocyte antigen matching and fetal loss—results of a ten year prospective study. Human Reproduction, 13,33–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Partridge. L. (1983). Non-random mating and offspring fitness. In: Mate Choice, P. Bateson (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 227–256.Google Scholar
  24. Perrett, D.I., Lee, K.J., Penton-Voak, I.S., Rowland, D.R., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D.M., Henzi, S.P., Castles, D.L., and Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perrett, D.I., May, K.A., and Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rabin, I.A. (1965). Growing up in a Kibbutz. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Roberts, D.F. (1977). Assortative mating in man: Husband/wife correlations in physical characteristics. Supplement to the Bulletin of The Eugenics Society, 2. Google Scholar
  28. Rowland, D.A. and Perrett, D.I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 15, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rushton, J.P. (1988). Genetic similarity, mate choice, and fecundity in humans. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rushton, J.P. (1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seemanova, E. (1971). A study of the children of incestuous matings. Human Heredity, 21,108–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shepher, J. (1971). Mate selection among second generation Kibbutz adolescents and adults: Incest avoidance and negative imprinting. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shepherd, J.W. and Ellis, H.D. (1972) The role of physical attractiveness in selection of marriage partners. Psychological Reports, 30, 1004.Google Scholar
  34. Spiro, M.E. (1965). Children of the Kibbutz. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  35. Spuhler, J.N. (1968). Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Eugenics Quarterly, 15, 128–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Talmon, Y. (1964). Mate selection in collective settlements. American Sociological Review, 29,491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thiessen, D. and Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thornhill, R. and Gangestad, S.W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237–269.Google Scholar
  40. Thornhill, R. and Gangestad, S.W. 1996). The evolution of human sexuality. Trends in Evolution and Ecology, 11,98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vandenberg, S.G. (1972). Assortive mating or who marries whom? Behavior Genetics, 2,127–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vos, D.R. (1994). Sex recognition in zebra finch males results form early experience. Behaviour, 128, 1–14.Google Scholar
  43. Vos, D.R. (1995a). The role of sexual imprinting for sex recognition in zebra finches: a difference between males and females. Animal Behavior, 50, 645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vos, D.R. (1995b). Sexual imprinting in zebra-finch females: Do females develop a preference for males that look like their father? Ethology, 99, 252–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waldman, B. (1987). Mechanisms of kin recognition. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 128, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wedekind. C, Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., and Paepke, A.J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B., 260, 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Westermarck, E. (1894). The History of Human Marriage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Wilson, G.D. and Barrett, P.T. (1987). Parental characteristics and partner choice: Some evidence for Oedipal imprinting. Journal of Biosocial Science, 19,157–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolf, A.P. (1993). Westermarck Redivivus. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22,157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright, S. (1933). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the VIth International Conference on Genetics, New York: Brooklyn Botanic Garden.Google Scholar
  51. Zajonc, R.B., Adelmann, P.K., Murphy, S.T., and Niendenthal, P.M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zei, G., Astofli, P., and Jayakar. S.D. (1981). Correlation between father's age and husband's age: A case of imprinting? Journal of Biosocial Science, 13,409–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. S. Penton- Voak
    • 1
  • D. I. Perrett
    • 1
  • J. W. Peirce
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of St. AndrewsUSA

Personalised recommendations