Advertisement

Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 321–336 | Cite as

A Review of Attractiveness Preferences in Infancy: From Faces to Objects

  • Fabrice Damon
  • Hélène Mottier
  • David Méary
  • Olivier Pascalis
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Despite some interpersonal variability, judgments of facial attractiveness are largely shared by most individuals, both within and between cultures. Infants are also sensitive to attractive faces even before being influenced by cultural standards of beauty. The intercultural agreement on this matter and its emergence during infancy suggest an evolutionary basis for facial attractiveness. Sensitivity to facial attractiveness is typically understood through evolutionary-based frameworks, either reflecting mate selection mechanisms or emerging as by-products of brain processing and perceptual sensory biases. In the current article, we review data on the emergence and the development of attractiveness preferences in infants, focusing on mechanisms that may explain or contribute to these preferences such as familiarity or fluency in processing. We further discuss the possibility that infants’ preference for attractiveness could extend to other stimuli than faces like objects or visual art. Potential directions for future research are proposed for developmental and comparative approaches.

Keywords

Attractiveness Infants Visual preferences Faces Objects 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., Kuwahata, H., Kuroshima, H., Leighty, K. A., & Fujita, K. (2005). Are monkeys aesthetists? Rensch (1957) revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 71–78. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.31.1.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aslin, R. N. (2007). What’s in a look? Developmental Science, 10, 48–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00563.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornstein, M. H. (1975). Qualities of color vision in infancy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 401–419. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(75)90070-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein, M. H., Ferdinandsen, K., & Gross, C. G. (1981). Perception of symmetry in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 17, 82–86. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect : overview and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bushnell, I. W. R. (2001). Mother’s face recognition in newborn infants: Learning and memory. Infant and Child Development, 10, 67–74. doi: 10.1002/icd.248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bushnell, I. W. R. (2003). Newborn face recognition. In O. Pascalis & A. M. Slater (Eds.), The development of face processing in infancy and early childhood: Current perspectives (pp. 41–53). Huntington: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Bushnell, I. W. R., Sai, F., & Mullin, J. T. (1989). Neonatal recognition of the mother’s face. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cacchione, T., Möhring, W., & Bertin, E. (2011). What is it about Picasso? Infants’ categorical and discriminatory abilities in the visual arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 370–378. doi: 10.1037/a0024129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chatterjee, A. (2013). The aesthetic brain: How we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1162/LEON_r_00948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C.-H. (1995). Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damon, F., Méary, D., Quinn, P. C., Lee, K., Simpson, E. A., Paukner, A., & Pascalis, O. (2017). Preference for facial averageness: Evidence for a common mechanism in human and macaque infants. Scientific Reports, 7, 46303. doi: 10.1038/srep46303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Haan, M., Johnson, M. H., Maurer, D., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Recognition of individual faces and average face prototypes by 1-and 3-month-old infants. Cognitive Development, 16, 659–678. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00051-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Heering, A., Turati, C., Rossion, B., Bulf, H., Goffaux, V., & Simion, F. (2008). Newborns’ face recognition is based on spatial frequencies below 0.5 cycles per degree. Cognition, 106, 444–454. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Giorgio, E., Méary, D., Pascalis, O., & Simion, F. (2012). The face perception system becomes species-specific at 3 months: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 95–99. doi: 10.1177/0165025412465362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fantz, R. L., & Fagan, J. F. (1975). Visual attention to size and number of pattern details by term and preterm infants during the first six months. Child Development, 46, 3–18. doi: 10.2307/1128828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field, T. M., Cohen, D., Garcia, R., & Greenberg, R. (1984). Mother-stranger face discrimination by the newborn. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 19–25. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80019-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, C. B., Ferdinandsen, K., & Bornstein, M. H. (1981). The role of symmetry in infant form discrimination. Child Development, 52, 457–462. doi: 10.2307/1129162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghirlanda, S., Jansson, L., & Enquist, M. (2002). Chickens prefer beautiful humans. Human Nature, 13, 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giannouli, V. (2013). Visual symmetry perception. Encephalos, 50, 31–42.Google Scholar
  22. Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 395–410. doi: 10.1177/1088868315574978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffey, J. A. F., & Little, A. C. (2014). Infant’s visual preferences for facial traits associated with adult attractiveness judgements: Data from eye-tracking. Infant Behavior and Development, 37, 268–275. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goren, C. C., Sarty, M., & Wu, P. Y. K. (1975). Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics, 56, 544–549.Google Scholar
  26. Hahn, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Neural and behavioral responses to attractiveness in adult and infant faces. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 591–603. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.08.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Halberstadt, J. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 166–183. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2003). It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 149–156. doi: 10.3758/BF03196479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayden, B. Y., Parikh, P. C., Deaner, R. O., & Platt, M. L. (2007). Economic principles motivating social attention in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 1751–1756. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heron-Delaney, M., Damon, F., Quinn, P. C., Méary, D., Xiao, N. G., Lee, K., & Pascalis, O. (2016). An adult face bias in infants that is modulated by face race. International Journal of Behavioral Development. doi: 10.1177/0165025416651735.
  32. Heron-Delaney, M., Quinn, P. C., Lee, K., Slater, A. M., & Pascalis, O. (2013). Nine-month-old infants prefer unattractive bodies over attractive bodies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 30–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heron-Delaney, M., Wirth, S., & Pascalis, O. (2011). Infants’ knowledge of their own species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1753–1763. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0371.Google Scholar
  34. Hillairet de Boisferon, A., Uttley, L., Quinn, P. C., Lee, K., & Pascalis, O. (2014). Female face preference in 4-month-olds: The importance of hairline. Infant Behavior & Development, 37, 676–681. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hönekopp, J. (2006). Once more: is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32, 199–209. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, M. H. (2005). Subcortical face processing. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 6, 766–774. doi: 10.1038/nrn1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, M. H., Dziurawiec, S., Ellis, H., & Morton, J. (1991). Newborns’ preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition, 40, 1–19.Google Scholar
  39. Johnson, M. H., Senju, A., & Tomalski, P. (2015). The two-process theory of face processing: Modifications based on two decades of data from infants and adults. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 50, 169–179. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature, 4, 271–296. doi: 10.1007/BF02692202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1990). The construction of subjective experience: Memory attributions. Mind & Language, 5, 49–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1990.tb00152.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kelly, D. J., Liu, S., Ge, L., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Liu, Q., & Pascalis, O. (2007). Cross-race preferences for same-race faces extend beyond the African versus Caucasian contrast in 3-month-old infants. Infancy, 11, 87–95. doi: 10.1080/15250000709336871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly, D. J., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K., Gibson, A., Smith, M., & Pascalis, O. (2005). Three-month-olds, but not newborn, prefer own-race face. Developmental Science, 8, 31–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.0434a.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krentz, U. C., & Earl, R. K. (2013). The baby as beholder: Adults and infants have common preferences for original art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 181–190. doi: 10.1037/a0030691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27, 79–84. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Rieser-Danner, L. A., & Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? Developmental Psychology, 23, 363–369. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.23.3.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Rieser-Danner, L. A. (1990). Infants’ differential social responses to attractive and unattractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 26, 153–159. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.26.1.153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leder, H., Tinio, P. P. L., Fuchs, I. M., & Bohrn, I. (2010). When attractiveness demands longer looks: The effects of situation and gender. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1858–1871. doi: 10.1080/17470211003605142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lewis, M. B., & Johnston, R. A. (1999). A unified account of the effects of caricaturing faces. Visual Cognition, 6, 1–41. doi: 10.1080/713756800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Little, A. C. (2014). Domain specificity in human symmetry preferences: Symmetry is most pleasant when looking at human faces. Symmetry, 6, 222–233. doi: 10.3390/sym6020222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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. doi: 10.1348/000712602761381349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Little, A. C., & Jones, B. C. (2003). Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, 1759–1763. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 366, 1638–1659. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liu, S., Xiao, W. S., Xiao, N. G., Quinn, P. C., Zhang, Y., Chen, H., & Lee, K. (2015). Development of visual preference for own- versus other-race faces in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 51, 500–511. doi: 10.1037/a0038835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Macchi Cassia, V., Turati, C., & Simion, F. (2004). Can a nonspecific bias toward top-heavy patterns explain newborns’ face preference? Psychological Science, 15, 379–383. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00688.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Milewski, A. E. (1976). Infants’ discrimination of internal and external pattern elements. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 229–246. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(76)90004-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Milewski, A. E. (1978). Young infants’ visual processing of internal and adjacent shapes. Infant Behavior and Development, 1, 359–371. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(78)80047-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morton, J., & Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: a two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychological Review, 98, 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Munar, E., Gomez-Puerto, G., Call, J., & Nadal, M. (2015). Common visual preference for curved contours in humans and great apes. PloS One, 10, 1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Palmer, S. E., & Schloss, K. B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 8877–8882. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906172107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Palmer, S. E., & Schloss, K. B. (2015). Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. In Color Preference (p. 554). New York: Springer Science + Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3.Google Scholar
  65. Park, J., Shimojo, E., & Shimojo, S. (2010). Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 14552–14555. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004374107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pascalis, O., de Schonen, S., Morton, J., Deruelle, C., & Fabre-Grenet, M. (1995). Mother’s face recognition by neonates: A replication and an extension. Infant Behavior and Development, 18, 79–85. doi: 10.1016/0163-6383(95)90009-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pascalis, O., & Kelly, D. J. (2009). The origins of face processing in humans: Phylogeny and ontogeny. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 200–209. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01119.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowland, D. A., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887. doi: 10.1038/29772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242. doi: 10.1038/368239a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pornstein, M. H., & Krinsky, S. J. (1985). Perception of symmetry in infancy: The salience of vertical symmetry and the perception of pattern wholes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 1–19. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(85)90026-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363. doi: 10.1037/h0028558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Potter, T., & Corneille, O. (2008). Locating attractiveness in the face space: Faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 615–622. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.3.615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Quinn, P. C. (2011). Born to categorize. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 129–152). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  74. Quinn, P. C., Kelly, D. J., Lee, K., Pascalis, O., & Slater, A. M. (2008a). Preference for attractive faces in human infants extends beyond conspecifics. Developmental Science, 11, 76–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00647.x.
  75. Quinn, P. C., & Slater, A. M. (2003). Face processing at birth and beyond. In O. Pascalis & A. M. Slater (Eds.), The development of face processing in infancy and early childhood: Current perspectives (pp. 3–11). Huntington: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  76. Quinn, P. C., Uttley, L., Lee, K., Gibson, A., Smith, M., Slater, A. M., & Pascalis, O. (2008b). Infant preference for female faces occurs for same- but not other-race faces. Journal of Neuropsychology, 2, 15–26. doi: 10.1348/174866407X231029.
  77. Quinn, P. C., Yahr, J., Kuhn, A., Slater, A. M., & Pascalis, O. (2002). Representation of the gender of human faces by infants: a preference for female. Perception, 31, 1109–1121. doi: 10.1068/p3331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (2006). Perceptual fluency, preference, and evolution. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 37, 16–22.Google Scholar
  79. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rennels, J. L., & Davis, R. E. (2008). Facial experience during the first year. Infant Behavior & Development, 31, 665–678. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rennels, J. L., Kayl, A. J., Langlois, J. H., Davis, R. E., & Orlewicz, M. (2016). Asymmetries in infants’ attention toward and categorization of male faces: The potential role of experience. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 142, 137–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rhodes, G., Geddes, K., Jeffery, L., Dziurawiec, S., & Clark, A. (2002). Are average and symmetric faces attractive to infants? Discrimination and looking preferences. Perception, 31, 315–321. doi: 10.1068/p3129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001b). Generalization of mere exposure effects to averaged composite faces. Social Cognition, 19, 57–70. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.1.57.18961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., Akamatsu, S., et al. (2001a). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception, 30, 611–625. doi: 10.1068/p3123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rossion, B. (2008). Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica, 128, 274–289. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rossion, B., & Gauthier, I. (2002). How does the brain process upright and inverted faces? Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 1, 63–75. doi: 10.1177/1534582302001001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rubenstein, A. J., Kalakanis, L., & Langlois, J. H. (1999). Infant preferences for attractive faces: A cognitive explanation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 848–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ryan, M. J. (1998). Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science, 281, 1999–2003. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5385.1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sai, F. (2005). The role of the mother’s voice in developing mother’s face preference: Evidence for intermodal perception at birth. Infant and Child Development, 14, 29–50. doi: 10.1002/icd.376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Samuels, C. A., Butterworth, G., Roberts, T., Graupner, L., & Hole, G. (1994). Facial aesthetics: Babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry. Perception, 23, 823–831. doi: 10.1068/p230823n.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Samuels, C. A., & Ewy, R. (1985). Aesthetic perception of faces during infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 221–228. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1985.tb00975.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sanefuji, W., Wada, K., Yamamoto, T., Mohri, I., & Taniike, M. (2013). Development of preference for conspecific faces in human infants. Developmental Psychology, 50, 979–985. doi: 10.1037/a0035205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322. doi: 10.1038/nn1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Simion, F., Cassia, V. M., Turati, C., & Valenza, E. (2001). The origins of face perception: Specific versus non-specific mechanisms. Infant and Child Development, 10, 59–65. doi: 10.1002/icd.247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Simion, F., & Di Giorgio, E. (2015). Face perception and processing in early infancy: Inborn predispositions and developmental changes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Simion, F., Valenza, E., Macchi Cassia, V., Turati, C., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Newborns’ preference for up-down asymmetrical configurations. Developmental Science, 5, 427–434. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Slater, A. M. (2002). Visual perception in the newborn infant: Issues and debates. Intellectica, 34, 57–76.Google Scholar
  101. Slater, A. M., Bremner, J. G., Johnson, S. P., Sherwood, P., Hayes, R. A., & Brown, E. (2000a). Newborn infants’ preference for attractive faces: The role of internal and external facial features. Infancy, 1, 265–274. doi: 10.1207/S15327078IN0102_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Slater, A. M., & Kirby, R. (1998). Innate and learned perceptual abilities in the newborn infant. Experimental Brain Research, 123, 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Slater, A. M., Quinn, P. C., Hayes, R., & Brown, E. (2000b). The role of facial orientation in newborn infants’ preference for attractive faces. Developmental Science, 3, 181–185. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Slater, A. M., Von der Schulenburg, C., Brown, E., Badenoch, M., Butterworth, G., Parsons, S., & Samuels, C. A. (1998). Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 345–354. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90011-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Solso, R. L., & McCarthy, J. E. (1981). Prototype formation of faces: A case of pseudo-memory. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 499–503. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1981.tb01779.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sugden, N. A., Mohamed-Ali, M. I., & Moulson, M. C. (2014). I spy with my little eye: Typical, daily exposure to faces documented from a first-person infant perspective. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 249–261. doi: 10.1002/dev.21183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Teller, D. Y., Civan, A., & Bronson-Castain, K. (2004). Infants’ spontaneous color preferences are not due to adult-like brightness variations. Visual Neuroscience, 21, 397–401. doi: 10.1017/S0952523804213360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty - Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237–269. doi: 10.1007/BF02692201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00629.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01403-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thornhill, R., & Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 72, 497–548. doi: 10.1017/S0006323197005082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Trujillo, L. T., Jankowitsch, J. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2014). Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: A neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 1061–1076. doi: 10.3758/s13415-013-0230-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Turati, C., Simion, F., Milani, I., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Newborns’ preference for faces: What is crucial? Developmental Psychology, 38, 875–882. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Ullman, S., Vidal-Naquet, M., & Sali, E. (2002). Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 682–687. doi: 10.1038/nn870.Google Scholar
  115. Van Duuren, M., Kendell-Scott, L., & Stark, N. (2003). Early aesthetic choices: Infant preferences for attractive premature infant faces. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 212–219. doi: 10.1080/01650250244000218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wallis, G. (2013). Toward a unified model of face and object recognition in the human visual system. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–25. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Wallis, G., Siebeck, U. E., Swann, K., Blanz, V., & Bulthoff, H. H. (2008). The prototype effect revisited: Evidence for an abstract feature model of face recognition. Journal of Vision, 8, 1–15. doi: 10.1167/8.3.20.Google Scholar
  118. Walton, G., & Bower, T. (1993). Newborns form “prototypes” in less than 1 minute. Psychological Science, 4, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235–1253. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235.Google Scholar
  120. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2002). False memory and the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: The prototype-familiarity illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 131, 96–115. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.1.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Leboe, J. P. (2003). Two fluency heuristics (and how to tell them apart). Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 62–79. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00009-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wilkinson, N., Paikan, A., Gredebäck, G., Rea, F., & Metta, G. (2014). Staring us in the face? An embodied theory of innate face preference. Developmental Science, 17, 809–825. doi: 10.1111/desc.12159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167–185. doi: 10.1023/B:JONB.0000039648.30935.1b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Zeki, S. (2001). Artistic creativity and the brain. Science, 293, 51–52. doi: 10.1126/science.1062331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Zemach, I., Chang, S., & Teller, D. Y. (2007). Infant color vision: Prediction of infants’ spontaneous color preferences. Vision Research, 47, 1368–1381. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.09.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Grenoble-Alpes, LPNCGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.LPNC, CNRS, UMR 5105GrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations