Literature DB >> 12028768

Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics.

David I Perrett1, Ian S Penton-Voak, Anthony C Little, Bernard P Tiddeman, D Michael Burt, Natalie Schmidt, Roz Oxley, Nicholas Kinloch, Louise Barrett.   

Abstract

Mate preferences are shaped by infant experience of parental characteristics in a wide variety of species. Similar processes in humans may lead to physical similarity between parents and mates, yet this possibility has received little attention. The age of parents is one salient physical characteristic that offspring may attend to. The current study used computer-graphic faces to examine how preferences for age in faces were influenced by parental age. We found that women born to 'old' parents (over 30) were less impressed by youth, and more attracted to age cues in male faces than women with 'young' parents (under 30). For men, preferences for female faces were influenced by their mother's age and not their father's age, but only for long-term relationships. These data indicate that judgements of facial attractiveness in humans reflect the learning of parental characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12028768      PMCID: PMC1690969          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.1971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  26 in total

1.  Facial attractiveness.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Neuroperception. Early visual experience and face processing.

Authors:  R Le Grand; C J Mondloch; D Maurer; H P Brent
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-04-19       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.

Authors:  J H Langlois; L Kalakanis; A J Rubenstein; A Larson; M Hallam; M Smoot
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline.

Authors:  M H Johnson; S Dziurawiec; H Ellis; J Morton
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1991-08

5.  A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition.

Authors:  T Valentine
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1991-05

Review 6.  CONSPEC and CONLERN: a two-process theory of infant face recognition.

Authors:  J Morton; M H Johnson
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering.

Authors:  D Penn; W Potts
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1998-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces.

Authors:  A C Little; D M Burt; I S Penton-Voak; D I Perrett
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.

Authors:  D I Perrett; K A May; S Yoshikawa
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1994-03-17       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Understanding face recognition.

Authors:  V Bruce; A Young
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  1986-08
View more
  21 in total

1.  Human homogamy in facial characteristics: does a sexual-imprinting-like mechanism play a role?

Authors:  Saori Nojo; Satoshi Tamura; Yasuo Ihara
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2012-09

2.  Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces.

Authors:  B C Jones; D I Perrett; A C Little; L Boothroyd; R E Cornwell; D R Feinberg; B P Tiddeman; S Whiten; R M Pitman; S G Hillier; D M Burt; M R Stirrat; M J Law Smith; F R Moore
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-02-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Sex-contingent face after-effects suggest distinct neural populations code male and female faces.

Authors:  Anthony C Little; Lisa M DeBruine; Benedict C Jones
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 4.  Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research.

Authors:  Anthony C Little; Benedict C Jones; Lisa M DeBruine
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans.

Authors:  S Craig Roberts; Anthony C Little; L Morris Gosling; Benedict C Jones; David I Perrett; Vaughan Carter; Marion Petrie
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance.

Authors:  Lisa M DeBruine
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-05-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Evidence for adaptive design in human gaze preference.

Authors:  C A Conway; B C Jones; L M DeBruine; A C Little
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2008-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Facialmetric similarities mediate mate choice: sexual imprinting on opposite-sex parents.

Authors:  Tamas Bereczkei; Gabor Hegedus; Gabor Hajnal
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Concordant preferences for opposite-sex signals? Human pheromones and facial characteristics.

Authors:  R Elisabeth Cornwell; Lynda Boothroyd; D Michael Burt; David R Feinberg; Ben C Jones; Anthony C Little; Robert Pitman; Susie Whiten; David I Perrett
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes.

Authors:  Laura Germine; Richard Russell; P Matthew Bronstad; Gabriëlla A M Blokland; Jordan W Smoller; Holum Kwok; Samuel E Anthony; Ken Nakayama; Gillian Rhodes; Jeremy B Wilmer
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 10.834

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.