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.
References
Alley, T. R., &Cunningham, M. R. (1991). Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average.Psychological Science,2, 123–125.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and metaanalysis of research, 1968–1987.Psychological Bulletin,106, 265–289.
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.
Franks, J. J., &Bransford, S. D. (1971). Abstraction of visual patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 65–74.
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.
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.
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.
Jones, D., &Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations.Human Nature,4, 271–296.
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.
Last, P. R., Scott, E. O. G., &Talbot, F. H. (1983).Fishes of Tasmania. Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmanian Fisheries Development Authority.
Light, L. L., Hollander, S., &Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,7, 269–276.
Møller, A. P., &Swaddle, J. P. (1997).Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morph(Version 2.5) [Computer software] (1994). San Diego: Gryphon Software.
Nelson, J. S. (1994).Fishes of the world (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
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.
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.
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.
Rhodes, G., Brennan, S., &Carey, S. (1987). Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces.Cognitive Psychology,19, 473–497.
Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., &Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of mere exposure effects in social stimuli.Social Cognition,19, 57–70.
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.
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.
Rhodes, G., &McLean, I. G. (1990). Distinctiveness and expertise effects with homogeneous stimuli: Towards a model of configural coding.Perception,19, 773–794.
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., &Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations only attractive because of their symmetry?Psychological Science,10, 52–58.
Rhodes, G., &Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness.Psychological Science,7, 105–110.
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.
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.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,9, 1–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by an Otago Research Grant to the first author and by a grant from the Australian Research Council to the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Halberstadt, J., Rhodes, G. It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 149–156 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196479
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196479
Keywords
- Line Drawing
- Landmark Point
- Facial Attractiveness
- Familiar Stimulus
- Developmental Stability