Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 167–185 | Cite as

Sensitivity to “Bad Genes” and the Anomalous Face Overgeneralization Effect: Cue Validity, Cue Utilization, and Accuracy in Judging Intelligence and Health

  • Leslie A. Zebrowitz
  • Gillian Rhodes
Article

Abstract

The bad genes and anomalous face overgeneralization accounts of facial preferences were tested by examining cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging health and intelligence from faces in the upper and lower halves of the distributions of attractiveness and its components: averageness, symmetry, and masculinity. Consistent with the bad genes hypothesis, facial attractiveness, averageness, symmetry, and male face masculinity each provided valid cues to intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities. Consistent with the anomalous face overgeneralization hypothesis, attractiveness and its components were utilized as cues not only for faces in the lower halves of the distributions, but also for those in the upper halves. Intelligence and health were judged accurately for faces in the lower but not the upper half of the attractiveness distribution, and attractiveness mediated this accuracy at all ages except adolescence. Since adolescence is the prime mating age, the latter finding raises questions about the utility of attractiveness as an evolved mechanism to ensure the selection of high quality mates.

attractiveness bad genes face overgeneralization impression accuracy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  2. Bayer, L. M., & Snyder, M. M. (1950). Illness experience of a group of normal children. Child Development, 21, 93–120.Google Scholar
  3. Bayer, L. M., Whissell-Buechy, D., & Honzik, M. P. (1981). Health in the middle years. In D. H. Eichorn, J. A. Clausen, N. Haan, M. P. Honzik, & P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Present and past in middle life (pp. 55–88). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, R. Q., & Waldrop, M. F. (1982). Temperament and minor physical anomalies. In R.Porter & G. M. Collins (Eds.), Temperamental differences in infants and young children: CIBA Symposium No. 89. (pp. 206–220). London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, D. S. (2000). Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 273–342). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.Google Scholar
  7. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, M., Geller, B., Small, A. M., Petti, T. A., & Ferris, S. H. (1978). Minor physical anomalies in young psychotic children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 573–575.Google Scholar
  10. Cummings, C. D., Flynn, D., & Preus, M. (1982). Increased morphological variants in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 12, 373–383.Google Scholar
  11. Dion, K. K. (2002). Cultural perspectives on facial attractiveness. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 239–260). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  12. Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist, 139, 603–622.Google Scholar
  13. Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences.Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 89–96.Google Scholar
  14. Guy, J. D., Majorski, L. V., Wallace, C. J., & Guy, M. P. (1983). The incidence of minor physical anomalies in adult male schizophrenics. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 9, 571–582.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, W. D., & Zuk, M. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites? Science, 218, 384–387.Google Scholar
  16. Hoyme, H. E. (1994). Minor anomalies: Diagnostic clues to aberrant human morphogenesis. In T. A. Markow (Ed.), Developmental instability: Its origins and evolutionary implications (pp. 309–317). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Kalick, S. M., Zebrowitz, L. A., Langlois, J. H., & Johnson, R. M. (1998). Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychological Science, 9, 8–13.Google Scholar
  18. Krouse, J. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1982). Minor physical anomalies in exceptional children: A review and critique of research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 247–264.Google Scholar
  19. Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208.Google Scholar
  20. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L. E., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A. D., Hallam, M. J., & Smoot, M.T. (2000). Maxims and myths of beauty: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.Google Scholar
  21. Livshits, G., & Kobyliansky, E. (1991). Fluctuating asymmetry as a possible measure of developmental homeostasis in humans: A review. Human Biology, 63, 441–466.Google Scholar
  22. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190–198.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  25. Møller, A. P., & Swaddle, J. P. (1997). Asymmetry, developmental stability, and evolution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Møller, A. P., Christe, P., & Lux, E. (1999) Parasitism, host immune function, and sexual selection. Quarterly Review of Biology, 74, 3–74.Google Scholar
  27. Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework. In T. Heathereton, R. Kleck, J. G. Hull, & M. Hebl (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31–61). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  28. Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2003). Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Communication, 27, 65–88.Google Scholar
  29. Parsons, P. A. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry: An epigenetic measure of stress. Biological Reviews, 65, 131–145.Google Scholar
  30. Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1986). Predicting adult temperament from minor physical anomalies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1235–1239.Google Scholar
  31. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164.Google Scholar
  32. Rhodes, G., Chan, J., Zebrowitz, L. A., & Simmons, L. W. (2003). Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Suppl.), 270, S93–95.Google Scholar
  33. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 659–669.Google Scholar
  34. Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 105–110.Google Scholar
  35. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., & McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution & Human Behavior, 22, 31–46.Google Scholar
  36. Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 456–466.Google Scholar
  37. Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution & Human Behavior, 20, 71–76.Google Scholar
  38. Streissguth, A. P., Herman, C. S., & Smith, D. W. (1978). Intelligence, behavior, and dysmorphogenesis in the fetal alcohol syndrome: A report on 20 patients. The Journal of Pediatrics, 92, 363–367.Google Scholar
  39. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237–269.Google Scholar
  40. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460.Google Scholar
  41. Thornhill, T., & Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biological Reviews, 72, 497–548.Google Scholar
  42. Waldrop, M. F., & Halverson, C. F. (1972). Minor physical anomalies: Their incidence and relation to behavior in a normal and a deviant sample. In R. C. Smart & M. S. Smart (Eds.), Readings in child development and relationships (pp. 146–155). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul ? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Collins, M. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 204–223.Google Scholar
  46. Zebrowitz, L. A., Andreoletti, C., Collins, M. A., Lee, S. Y., & Blumenthal, J. (1998). Bright, bad, babyfaced boys: Appearance stereotypes do not always yield self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1300–1320.Google Scholar
  47. Zebrowitz, L. A., Collins, M. A., & Dutta, R. (1998). Appearance and personality across the lifespan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 736–749.Google Scholar
  48. Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 238–249.Google Scholar
  49. Zebrowitz, L. A., Fellous, J. M., Mignault, A., & Andreoletti, C. (2003). Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 194–215.Google Scholar
  50. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (in press). The ecological approach to person perception: Divergence and convergence with evolutionary psychology. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993). They don't all look alike: Individuated impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85–101.Google Scholar
  52. Zebrowitz, L. A., Olson, K., & Hoffman, K. (1993). Stability of babyfaceness and attractiveness across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 453–466.Google Scholar
  53. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Nature let a hundred flowers bloom: The multiple ways and wherefores of attractiveness. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 261–293). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie A. Zebrowitz
  • Gillian Rhodes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations