Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 149–156 | Cite as

It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive

  • Jamin Halberstadt
  • Gillian Rhodes
Brief Reports

Abstract

Average faces are attractive. We sought to distinguish whether this preference is an adaptation for finding high-quality mates (thedirect selectionaccount) or whether it reflects more general informationprocessing mechanisms. In three experiments, we examined the attractiveness of birds, fish, and automobiles whose averageness had been manipulated using digital image manipulation techniques common in research on facial attractiveness. Both manipulated averageness and rated averageness were strongly associated with attractiveness in all three stimulus categories. In addition, for birds and fish, but not for automobiles, the correlation between subjective averageness and attractiveness remained significant when the effect of subjective familiarity was partialled out. The results suggest that at least two mechanisms contribute to the attractiveness of average exemplars. One is a general preference for familiar stimuli, which contributes to the appeal of averageness in all three categories. The other is a preference for averageness per se, which was found for birds and fish, but not for automobiles, and may reflect a preference for features signaling genetic quality in living organisms, including conspecifics.

Keywords

Line Drawing Landmark Point Facial Attractiveness Familiar Stimulus Developmental Stability 
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.

References

  1. Alley, T. R., &Cunningham, M. R. (1991). Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average.Psychological Science,2, 123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and metaanalysis of research, 1968–1987.Psychological Bulletin,106, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., &Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facial metric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,59, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Franks, J. J., &Bransford, S. D. (1971). Abstraction of visual patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 65–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., &Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design.Evolution & Human Behavior,22, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, D., &Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations.Human Nature,4, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Langlois, J. H., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Last, P. R., Scott, E. O. G., &Talbot, F. H. (1983).Fishes of Tasmania. Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmanian Fisheries Development Authority.Google Scholar
  12. Light, L. L., Hollander, S., &Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,7, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Møller, A. P., &Swaddle, J. P. (1997).Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Morph(Version 2.5) [Computer software] (1994). San Diego: Gryphon Software.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, J. S. (1994).Fishes of the world (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., &Rinamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference.Nature,399, 741–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., Henzi, S. P., Castles, D., &Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.Nature,394, 884–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rhodes, G., Brennan, S., &Carey, S. (1987). Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces.Cognitive Psychology,19, 473–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., &Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of mere exposure effects in social stimuli.Social Cognition,19, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rhodes, G., Harwood, K., Yoshikawa, S., Nishitani, M., &McLean, I. G. (2002). The attractiveness of average facial configurations: Cross-cultural evidence and the biology of beauty. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.),Advances in visual cognition: Vol. 1. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 35–58). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  22. Rhodes, G., Hickford, C., &Jeffery, L. (2000). Sex-typicality and attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive?British Journal of Psychology,91, 125–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rhodes, G., &McLean, I. G. (1990). Distinctiveness and expertise effects with homogeneous stimuli: Towards a model of configural coding.Perception,19, 773–794.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., &Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations only attractive because of their symmetry?Psychological Science,10, 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rhodes, G., &Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness.Psychological Science,7, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., &Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western populations: In search of biologically based standards of beauty.Perception,30, 611–625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., &McKay, R. (2000). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health?Evolution & Human Behavior,21, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,9, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations