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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Similar content being viewed by others
Benson, P. J., & Perrett, D. I. (1993). Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception, 22, 257–262.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and effect: Overview and meta-analysis of research 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.
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.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.
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.
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.
Fisher, A. E. (1962). Effects of stimulus variation on sexual satiation in male rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 614–620.
Galton, F. J. (1878). Composite portraits. Nature, 18, 97–100.
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.
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Little, A. C. (2007). The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1273–1277.
Kelley, J. L., Graves, J. A., & Magurran, A. E. (1999). Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies. Nature, 401, 661–662.
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.
Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.
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.
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.
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.
Light, L. L., Hollander, S., & Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 269–276.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 395–415.
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242.
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.
Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of mere exposure effects in social stimuli. Social Cognition, 19, 57–70.
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.
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.
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52–58.
Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 105–110.
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.
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.
Webster, M. A., Kaping, D., Mizokami, Y., & Duhamel, P. (2004). Adaptation to natural facial categories. Nature, 428, 557–561.
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.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
A. C. L. is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.
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