Literature DB >> 18085954

Dissociating averageness and attractiveness: attractive faces are not always average.

Lisa M DeBruine1, Benedict C Jones, Layla Unger, Anthony C Little, David R Feinberg.   

Abstract

Although the averageness hypothesis of facial attractiveness proposes that the attractiveness of faces is mostly a consequence of their averageness, 1 study has shown that caricaturing highly attractive faces makes them mathematically less average but more attractive. Here the authors systematically test the averageness hypothesis in 5 experiments using both rating and visual adaptation paradigms. Visual adaptation has previously been shown to increase both preferences for previously viewed face types (i.e., attractiveness) and their perceived normality (i.e., averageness). The authors used a visual adaptation procedure to test whether facial attractiveness is dependent upon faces' proximity to average (averageness hypothesis) or their location relative to average along an attractiveness dimension in face space (contrast hypothesis). While the typical pattern of change due to visual adaptation was found for judgments of normality, judgments of attractiveness resulted in a very different pattern. The results of these 5 experiments conclusively support the proposal that there are specific nonaverage characteristics that are particularly attractive. The authors discuss important implications for the interpretation of studies using a visual adaptation paradigm to investigate attractiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18085954     DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  18 in total

1.  Adaptation and the perception of facial age.

Authors:  Sean F O'Neil; Michael A Webster
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2011

2.  Stability of women's facial shape throughout the menstrual cycle.

Authors:  U M Marcinkowska; I J Holzleitner
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Adaptation to different mouth shapes influences visual perception of ambiguous lip speech.

Authors:  Benedict C Jones; David R Feinberg; Patricia E G Bestelmeyer; Lisa M Debruine; Anthony C Little
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-08

4.  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

5.  The power of liking: Highly sensitive aesthetic processing for guiding us through the world.

Authors:  Stella J Faerber; Claus-Christian Carbon
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2012-09-26

6.  Do we know others' visual liking?

Authors:  Ryosuke Niimi; Katsumi Watanabe
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2014-11-20

7.  Facial Features: What Women Perceive as Attractive and What Men Consider Attractive.

Authors:  José Antonio Muñoz-Reyes; Marta Iglesias-Julios; Miguel Pita; Enrique Turiegano
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Programmed genetic instability: a tumor-permissive mechanism for maintaining the evolvability of higher species through methylation-dependent mutation of DNA repair genes in the male germ line.

Authors:  Yongzhong Zhao; Richard J Epstein
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2008-06-04       Impact factor: 16.240

9.  Adaptation to facial trustworthiness is different in female and male observers.

Authors:  Joanna Wincenciak; Milena Dzhelyova; David I Perrett; Nick E Barraclough
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 10.  A unified coding strategy for processing faces and voices.

Authors:  Galit Yovel; Pascal Belin
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 20.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.