Advertisement

The Riddle of Attractiveness: Looking for an ‘Aesthetic Sense’ Within the Hedonic Mind of the Beholders

  • Michel KreutzerEmail author
  • Verena Aebischer
Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 9)

Abstract

Darwin conceived the theory of sexual selection in order to explain beauty in animal Kingdom. He hypothesised that most of the male ornaments had been developed to correspond to a female ‘sense of beauty’. His successors developed a theory of mate choice in which the aesthetic sense was left out. The male sexual ornaments were considered as salient cues that evolved because they are indicators of males’ fitness, which stimulate the female to mate. As a consequence “good genes” would spread to future generations. Such a perspective left no place for the males’ appearance and displays as a source of pleasure for females. More recently, authors have considered that male traits might evolve because they make discrimination, stimulus recognition, memorability and learning easier. The winner is the most attractive not necessarily the ‘strongest’ male. Moreover, male traits might be favoured because they happen to fit an already existing bias in the female sensory system. Such a sensory exploitation determines the direction of a “runaway process”.

Today, the “aesthetic sense” is back, the neurosciences study the chemistry and circuitry that support pleasure in the brains of humans and animals; social psychology and animal cognition focus on emotions, categorisation and prototype used for mate choice. Animals and humans in order to make a decision, have to evaluate both the sensation and the goal directed action. For this a salient hedonic value has to be built by the mind. Here are the processes involved in the ‘aesthetic judgement’.

Keywords

Animal aesthetics Attractiveness in humans Brain reward circuitry and aesthetics Evolution of beauty Hedonic mind 

References

  1. Aharon I, Etcoff N, Ariely D, Chabris CF, O’Connor E, Breiter HC (2001) Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron 32(3):537–551Google Scholar
  2. Alley TR, Cunningham MR (1991) Average faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average. Psychol Sci 2(2):123–125Google Scholar
  3. Anderson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Aragona BJ, Liu Y, Curtis T, Stephan FK, Wang Z (2003) A critical role for Nucleus accumbens dopamine in partner preference formation in male prairie voles. J Neurosci 28(8):3483–3480Google Scholar
  5. Balcombe J (2006) Pleasurable kingdom, animals and the nature of feeling good. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels A, Zeki S (2004) The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. Neuroimage 21:1155–1166Google Scholar
  7. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368Google Scholar
  8. Bekoff M (2007) The emotional lives of animals. New World Library, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  9. Berridge KC, Kringelbach ML (2008) Affective neuroscience of pleasure: reward in humans and animals. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 199(3):457–480Google Scholar
  10. Bishop MP, Elder ST, Health RG (1963) Intracranial self-stimulation in man. Science 140:394–396Google Scholar
  11. Bösiger E 1974. The role of sexual selection in the maintenance of the genital heterogeneity of Drosophila populations and its genetic basis. In: van Abeelen JFH (ed) Genetic of behaviour. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Burley NT, Symanski R (1998) A taste for the beautiful: latent aesthetic mate preferences for white crests in two species of Australian Grassfinches. Am Nat 152(6):792–802Google Scholar
  13. Buss DM (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci 12(1):1–49Google Scholar
  14. Buss DM (1994) The evolution of desire. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss DM (1998) The psychology of human mate selection: exploring the complexity of the strategic repertoire. In: Crawford C, Mahwah DKD (eds) Handbook of evolutionary psychology: ideas, issues, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 405–429Google Scholar
  16. Buss DM, Barnes M (1986) Preferences in human mate selection. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(3):559–570Google Scholar
  17. Cary MS (1978) The role of gaze in the initiation of conversation. Social Psychol 41(3):269–271Google Scholar
  18. Cosmides L, Tooby J (1997) Evolutionary psychology : a primer. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html. Accessed 18 May 2012
  19. Crook JH (1972a) Sexual selection, dimorphism, and social organization in primates. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 180–230Google Scholar
  20. Crook JH (1972b) The socio-ecology of primates. In: Crook JH (ed) Social behavior in birds and mammals: essays on the social ethology of animals and man. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Cunningham MR (1986) Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments in the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(5):925–935Google Scholar
  22. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex, vol 1–2. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Darwin C (1872) The expression of the emotions in man and animals. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Dickinson A, Balleine B (2009) Hedonics: the cognitive-motivational interface. In: Kringelbach ML, Berridge KC (eds) Pleasures of the brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 74–84Google Scholar
  26. Draganoiu T, Nagle L, Kreutzer M (2002) Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proc Royal Soc Lond 269:2525–2531Google Scholar
  27. Eagly AH, Wood W (1999) The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolves dispositions versus social roles. Am Psychol 54(6):408–423Google Scholar
  28. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC (1991) What is beautiful is good, but…: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol Bull 110(1):109–128Google Scholar
  29. Fink B, Penton-Voak I (2002) Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Curr Directions Psychol Sci 11(5):154–158Google Scholar
  30. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Fisher H (2004) Why we love: the nature and chemistry of romantic love. Henry Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Fisher H, Aron A, Brown LL (2005) Romantic love : an fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. J Comp Neurol 493:58–62Google Scholar
  33. Fisher K, Brown LL, Aron A, Strong G, Mashek D (2010) Reward, addiction, and emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. J Neurophysiol 104:51–60Google Scholar
  34. Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1991) Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim Behav 42(1):1–14Google Scholar
  35. Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1993) Receiver psychology and the design animal signals. Trends Neurosci 16(11):430–436Google Scholar
  36. Haldane JBS (1932) The causes of evolution. Longmans, Green and Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218(4570):384–387Google Scholar
  38. Hara E, Kubikova L, Hessler N, Jarvis E (2007) Role of the midbrain dopaminergic system in modulation of vocal brain activation by social context. J Neurosci 25(11):3406–3416Google Scholar
  39. Haufe C (2007) Sexual selection and mate choice in evolutionary psychology. Biol Philos 23(1):115–128Google Scholar
  40. Herrnstein RJ (1984) Objects, categories and discriminative stimuli. In: Roitblat HL, Bever TG, Terrace (eds) Animal cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 233–261Google Scholar
  41. Hill G, Nolan PM, Stoehr AM (1999) Pairing success relative to male plumage redness and pigment symmetry in the house finch: temporal and geographical constancy. Behav Ecol 10(1):48–53Google Scholar
  42. Hoquet T (2009) Darwin contre Darwin. : Comment lire l’origine des espèces? Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  43. Huang Y, Hessler NA (2008) Social modulation during songbird courtship potentiates midbrain dopaminergic neurons. Plos ONE 3(10):e3281. doi:10. 1371/journal.pone.0003281Google Scholar
  44. Huxley JS (1914) The courtship-habits of the great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus). With an addition to the theory of sexual selection. Proc Zool Soc 35:491–562Google Scholar
  45. Ikemoto S, Panksepp J (1999) The role of nucleus accumbens dopamine in motivated behavior: a unifying interpretation with special reference to reward-seeking. Brain Res 31(1):6–41Google Scholar
  46. Insel TR (2003) Is social attachment an addictive disorder? Physiol Behav 79:351–357Google Scholar
  47. Jones D (1995) Sexual selection, physical attractiveness and facial neoteny: cross-cultural evidence and implications. Curr Anthropol 36(5):723–748Google Scholar
  48. Jones D, Hill K (1993) Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat 4(3):271–296Google Scholar
  49. Kawabata H, Zeki S (2004) Neural correlates of beauty. J Neurophysiol 91:1699–1705Google Scholar
  50. Kelley AE, Berridge KC (2002) The neuroscience of natural rewards: relevance to addictive drugs. J Neurosci 22(9):3306–3311Google Scholar
  51. Kenrick DT, Montello DR, Gutierres SE, Trost MR (1993) Effects of physical attractiveness on affect and perceptual judgements: when social comparison overrides social reinforcement. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 19(2):195–199Google Scholar
  52. Kreutzer M (2012) La beauté est-elle honnête? Pour la Science 412:63Google Scholar
  53. Langlois JH, Roggman LA (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci 1(2):115–121Google Scholar
  54. Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS (1991) Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psychol 27(1):79–84Google Scholar
  55. Li NP, Kenrick DT (2006) Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(3):468–489Google Scholar
  56. Marcus DK, Miller RS (2003) Sex differences in judgments of physical attractiveness: a social relations analysis. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 29(3):325–335Google Scholar
  57. Maynard Smith J (1989) Evolutionary genetics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Milam EL (2010) Looking for a few good males. Female choice in evolutionary biology. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  60. Miller G (2000) Evolution of human music through sexual selection. In: Wallin NLB, Merker B, Brown S (eds) The origin of music. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 329–360Google Scholar
  61. Mithen S (2006) The singing neanderthals, the origins of music, language, mind and body. Harvard University Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  62. Møller AP (1992) Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornements. Nature 357:238–240Google Scholar
  63. Møller AP (1996) Parasitism and developmental instability of hosts: a review. Oikos 75:189–196Google Scholar
  64. Moore MM (1985) Nonverbal courtship patterns in women. Context and consequences. Ethol Sociobiol 6(4):237–247Google Scholar
  65. Olds J, Milner P (1954) Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and others regions of rat brain. J Comp Psychol 47:419–427Google Scholar
  66. Olson IR, Marshuetz C (2005) Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion 5(4):498–502Google Scholar
  67. Panksepp J (1998) Affective neuroscience, the foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Panksepp J (2005) Beyong a joke : from animal laugher to human joy. Science 308(5118):62–63Google Scholar
  69. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzik SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S (1998) Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394(6696):884–887Google Scholar
  70. Petit C (1958) Le déterminisme génétique et psycho-physiologique de la compétition sexuelle chez Drosophila melanogaster. Bulletin biologique de la France et de la Belgique 92(3):248–329Google Scholar
  71. Petts J (2000) Aesthetic experiences and the revelation of value. J Aesthet Art Critic 58(1):61–71Google Scholar
  72. Portman A (1952) Animal forms and patterns. A study of the appearance of animals. Faber and Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. Potter T, Corneille O (2008) Locating attractiveness in the face space: faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype. Psychon Bull Rev 15(3):615–622Google Scholar
  74. Rhodes G, Tremewan T (1996) Averageness, exaggeration and facial attractiveness. Psychol Sci 7:105–110Google Scholar
  75. Roitblat HL (1985) Introduction to comparative cognition. W. H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Romanes GJ (1881) Animal intelligence. Kegan Paul, Trench, LondonGoogle Scholar
  77. Rosch E, Mervis CB (1975) Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn Psychol 7:573–605Google Scholar
  78. Rowe C (1999) Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Animal Behav 58:921–931Google Scholar
  79. Ryan MJ (1990) Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surv Evol Biol 7:157–195Google Scholar
  80. Sanderson CA (2010) Social psychology. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  81. Schultz W (2006) Behavioral theories and neurophysiology of reward. Annu Rev Psychol 57:87–115Google Scholar
  82. Slotten R (2004) The life of Alfred Wallace, the heretic in Darwin’s court. Lewis, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  83. Spinoza B de (1901) The chiefs works of Benedict de Spinoza, [translated from the Latin, with an introduction by Elwes RHM, vol 2 De Intellectus Emendatione. Ethica. (Selected Letters) Revised edition]. George Bell and Sons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  84. Stein DJ (2009) Love and attachment: the psychobiology of social bounding. CNS Spectr 14(5):239–242Google Scholar
  85. Suthers R, Vallet E, Kreutzer M (2012) Bilateral coordination and the motor basis of female preference for sexual signals in canary song. J Exp Biol 215:2950–2959Google Scholar
  86. Swaddle JP (1996) Reproductive success and symmetry in zebra finches. Anim Behav 51:203–210Google Scholar
  87. Swami V, Furnham A (2006) The science of attraction. Psychol 19(6):362–365Google Scholar
  88. Symons D (1979) The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  89. Symons D (1989) A critique of Darwinian anthropology. Ethol Sociobiol 10(1–3):131–144Google Scholar
  90. Thompson RKR (1995). Natural and relational concepts in animals. In: Roitblat HL, Meyer J-A (eds) Comparative approaches to cognitive Science. MIT, Cambridge, pp 176–224Google Scholar
  91. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1993) Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry and parasite resistance. Hum Nat 4:237–269Google Scholar
  92. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 3(12):452–460Google Scholar
  93. Tooby J, Cosmides L (1990) The past explains the present: emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethol Sociobiol 11(4–5):375–424Google Scholar
  94. Tovée MJ, Tasker K, Benson PJ (2000) Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in human female body? Evol Hum Behav 21:191–200Google Scholar
  95. Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell BC (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  96. Vallet E, Kreutzer M (1995) Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Anim Behav 49:1603–1610Google Scholar
  97. Wallace AR (1858) On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type; instability of varieties supposed to prove the permanent distinctiveness of species. J Proc Linnaean Soc Lond (Zool) 3:53–62Google Scholar
  98. Wallace AR (1864) The origin of human races and the antiquity of man deduced from the theory of ‘Natural selection’. J Anthropol Soc Lond 2:clxviGoogle Scholar
  99. Walster E, Aronson V, Abrahams D, Rottman L (1966) Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 4(5):508–516Google Scholar
  100. Watanabe S (2012) Animal aesthetics from the perspective of comparative cognition. In: Watanabe S, Kuczaj S (eds) Emotions of animals and humans: comparative perspective. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  101. Welsch W (2004) Animal aesthetics. Contemporary Aesthetics, online journal. http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=243. Accessed 30 April 2012
  102. Winkielman P, Halberstadt J, Fazendeiro T, Catty S (2006) Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychol Sci 17(9):799–806Google Scholar
  103. Wise RA (2004) Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nat Rev Neurosci 5:483–494Google Scholar
  104. Wood W, Eagly AH (2000) Once again, the origins of sex differences. Am Psychol 55(9):1062–1063Google Scholar
  105. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214Google Scholar
  106. Zahavi A (1977) The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol 67:603–605Google Scholar
  107. Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35(2):151–175Google Scholar
  108. Zanna M, Pack S (1975) On the self-fulfilling nature of apparent sex differences in behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol 11(6):583–591Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Ethologie, Cognition et Développement (EA 3456)University Paris Ouest, Nanterre—La DéfenseNanterreFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire Parisien de Psychologie Sociale (EA 4386)University Paris Ouest, Nanterre—La DéfenseNanterreFrance

Personalised recommendations