Literature DB >> 16181436

Variation in perceived attractiveness: differences between dynamic and static faces.

Adam J Rubenstein1.   

Abstract

Studies that attempt to define facial attractiveness often do so in terms of structural features of the face (e.g., symmetry, averageness). However, these studies typically use static images of faces that may not be analogous to dynamic faces that are frequently used in other areas of attractiveness research, such as research investigating the impact of attractiveness on social interaction. The current studies investigated similarities and differences in how dynamic and static faces are perceived and evaluated. Study 1 demonstrated that dynamic and static faces are judged by different evaluative standards. Study 2 demonstrated that perceived emotion may be more salient in judging the attractiveness of dynamic faces than in judging the attractiveness of static faces. These findings illustrate the need to more fully explore the differences between dynamic and static faces to facilitate a better understanding of the characteristics underlying perceived attractiveness.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16181436     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01610.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  15 in total

1.  Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness.

Authors:  Kerri L Johnson; Louis G Tassinary
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Eye tracking reveals a crucial role for facial motion in recognition of faces by infants.

Authors:  Naiqi G Xiao; Paul C Quinn; Shaoying Liu; Liezhong Ge; Olivier Pascalis; Kang Lee
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2015-06

3.  Differences in Expressivity Based on Attractiveness: Target or Perceiver Effects?

Authors:  Jennifer L Rennels; Andrea J Kayl
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2015-09-01

4.  Eye of the beholder: Symmetry perception in social judgments based on whole body displays.

Authors:  Jennifer Rees Brown; Rick van der Zwan; Anna Brooks
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2012-06-15

5.  Facial attractiveness ratings from video-clips and static images tell the same story.

Authors:  Gillian Rhodes; Hanne C Lie; Nishta Thevaraja; Libby Taylor; Natasha Iredell; Christine Curran; Shi Qin Claire Tan; Pia Carnemolla; Leigh W Simmons
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The frozen face effect: why static photographs may not do you justice.

Authors:  Robert B Post; Jason Haberman; Lica Iwaki; David Whitney
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-02-20

7.  Intense or malicious? The decoding of eyebrow-lowering frowning in laughter animations depends on the presentation mode.

Authors:  Jennifer Hofmann
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-18

8.  The face value of feedback: facial behaviour is shaped by goals and punishments during interaction with dynamic faces.

Authors:  Jonathan Yi; Philip Pärnamets; Andreas Olsson
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 2.963

9.  Facial esthetics and the assignment of personality traits before and after orthognathic surgery rated on video clips.

Authors:  Klaus Sinko; Reinhold Jagsch; Claudio Drog; Wilhelm Mosgoeller; Arno Wutzl; Gabriele Millesi; Clemens Klug
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Perception of aesthetics and personality traits in orthognathic surgery patients: A comparison of still and moving images.

Authors:  Klaus Sinko; Ulrich S Tran; Arno Wutzl; Rudolf Seemann; Gabriele Millesi; Reinhold Jagsch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.