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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Benson, P. J., & Perrett, D. I. (1993). Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception, 22, 257–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and effect: Overview and meta-analysis of research 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Galton, F. J. (1878). Composite portraits. Nature, 18, 97–100.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kelley, J. L., Graves, J. A., & Magurran, A. E. (1999). Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies. Nature, 401, 661–662.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of mere exposure effects in social stimuli. Social Cognition, 19, 57–70.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 105–110.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A. C. L. is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony C. Little.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Little, A.C., DeBruine, L.M. & Jones, B.C. Sex Differences in Attraction to Familiar and Unfamiliar Opposite-Sex Faces: Men Prefer Novelty and Women Prefer Familiarity. Arch Sex Behav 43, 973–981 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0120-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Attractiveness
  • Face processing
  • Familiarity
  • Preference
  • Novelty
  • Sex differences