Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 482–487 | Cite as

Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces

Brief Reports

Abstract

Images of faces manipulated to make their shapes closer to the average are perceived as more attractive. The influences of symmetry and averageness are often confounded in studies based on full-face views of faces. Two experiments are reported that compared the effect of manipulating the averageness of female faces in profile and full-face views. Use of a profile view allows a face to be ”morphed“ toward an average shape without creating an image that becomes more symmetrical. Faces morphed toward the average were perceived as more attractive in both views, but the effect was significantly stronger for full-face views. Both full-face and profile views morphed away from the average shape were perceived as less attractive. It is concluded that the effect of averageness is independent of any effect of symmetry on the perceived attractiveness of female faces.

References

  1. Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits.Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain & Ireland,8, 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Halberstadt, J., &Rhodes, G. (2003). It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kowner, R. (1996). Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 662–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Langlois, J., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., &Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A metaanalytic and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin,126, 390–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Langlois, J., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Langlois, J., Roggman, L. A., &Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?Psychological Science,5, 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, K. J., &Perrett, D. I. (2000). Manipulation of color and shape information and its consequence upon recognition and best-likeness judgments.Perception,29, 1291–1312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., &Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness.Evolution & Human Behavior,20, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. [S.], Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., Henzi, S. P., Castles, D. L., &Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.Nature,394, 884–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rhodes, G. (1996).Superportraits: Caricatures and recognition. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rhodes, G., Profitt, F., Grady, J. M., &Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rhodes, G., Roberts, J., &Simmons, L. W. (1999). Reflections on symmetry and attractiveness.Psychology, Evolution, & Gender,1, 279–295.Google Scholar
  16. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., &Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry?Psychological Science,10, 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rhodes, G., &Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration and facial attractiveness.Psychological Science,7, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., &Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty.Perception,30, 611–625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., &McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health?Evolution & Human Behavior,22, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Samuels, C. A., Butterworth, G., Roberts, T., Graupner, L., &Hole, G. (1994). Facial aesthetics: Babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry.Perception,23, 823–831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness.Trends in Cognitive Science,3, 452–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and race in face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 161–204.Google Scholar
  23. Valentine, T. (2001). Face-space models of face recognition. In M. J. Wenger & J. T. Townsend (Eds.),Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges (pp. 83–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations