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.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits.Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain & Ireland,8, 132–144.
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.
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.
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.
Kowner, R. (1996). Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 662–675.
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.
Langlois, J., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.
Langlois, J., Roggman, L. A., &Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?Psychological Science,5, 214–220.
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.
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.
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.
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.
Rhodes, G. (1996).Superportraits: Caricatures and recognition. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Rhodes, G., Profitt, F., Grady, J. M., &Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 659–669.
Rhodes, G., Roberts, J., &Simmons, L. W. (1999). Reflections on symmetry and attractiveness.Psychology, Evolution, & Gender,1, 279–295.
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.
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.
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.
Samuels, C. A., Butterworth, G., Roberts, T., Graupner, L., &Hole, G. (1994). Facial aesthetics: Babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry.Perception,23, 823–831.
Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness.Trends in Cognitive Science,3, 452–460.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valentine, T., Darling, S. & Donnelly, M. Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 482–487 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196599
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196599