Literature DB >> 21432661

Faces differing in attractiveness elicit corresponding affective responses.

Connor P Principe1, Judith H Langlois.   

Abstract

We examined whether faces differing in attractiveness elicit positive and negative affect in 7- to 10-year-old children (N=66) and adults (N=73). Facial electromyography measured affective response. Less attractive faces evoked significantly more levator labii superioris responses in adults and children. Attractiveness was negatively correlated with corrugator supercilii activity in adults, but not significantly in children. These results suggest that less attractive faces evoke greater disgust and negative affect than more attractive faces. Perceivers' affective reactions to attractive faces may play an important role in attractiveness preferences and attractiveness stereotypes.
© 2010 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21432661      PMCID: PMC3269167          DOI: 10.1080/02699931003612098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Emot        ISSN: 0269-9931


  13 in total

1.  Facial attractiveness.

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

2.  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

3.  Effects of positive and negative affect on electromyographic activity over zygomaticus major and corrugator supercilii.

Authors:  Jeff T Larsen; Catherine J Norris; John T Cacioppo
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.016

4.  It's not just average faces that are attractive: computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive.

Authors:  Jamin Halberstadt; Gillian Rhodes
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-03

5.  Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: evidence from connectionist modeling.

Authors:  Leslie A Zebrowitz; Jean-Marc Fellous; Alain Mignault; Carrie Andreoletti
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  2003

6.  A facial electromyographic investigation of affective contrast.

Authors:  Jeff T Larsen; J Ian Norris
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Aesthetic preference and syntactic prototypicality in music: 'tis the gift to be simple.

Authors:  J D Smith; R J Melara
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1990-03

8.  Guidelines for human electromyographic research.

Authors:  A J Fridlund; J T Cacioppo
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  The psychophysiology of disgust: differentiating negative emotional contexts with facial EMG.

Authors:  S R Vrana
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.016

10.  Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind.

Authors:  Piotr Winkielman; Jamin Halberstadt; Tedra Fazendeiro; Steve Catty
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-09
View more
  9 in total

1.  Children's classification and lexicalization of attractiveness, gender, and race: differential displays of these concepts and relatedness to bias and flexibility.

Authors:  Jennifer L Rennels; Judith H Langlois
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2014-05-16

2.  Children's attractiveness, gender, and race biases: a comparison of their strength and generality.

Authors:  Jennifer L Rennels; Judith H Langlois
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2014-02-22

3.  Unattractive infant faces elicit negative affect from adults.

Authors:  Stevie S Schein; Judith H Langlois
Journal:  Infant Behav Dev       Date:  2015-02-03

4.  Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: a neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness.

Authors:  Logan T Trujillo; Jessica M Jankowitsch; Judith H Langlois
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.282

5.  SHIFTING THE PROTOTYPE: EXPERIENCE WITH FACES INFLUENCES AFFECTIVE AND ATTRACTIVENESS PREFERENCES.

Authors:  Connor P Principe; Judith H Langlois
Journal:  Soc Cogn       Date:  2012-02

6.  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

7.  Titles change the esthetic appreciations of paintings.

Authors:  Gernot Gerger; Helmut Leder
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Female Facial Attractiveness Assessed from Three-Dimensional Contour Lines by University Students.

Authors:  Jinwara Jirathamopas; Yu Fang Liao; Ellen Wen-Ching Ko; Yu-Ray Chen; Chiung Shing Huang
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2018-05-22

9.  Light makeup decreases receivers' negative emotional experience.

Authors:  Ling Zhang; Wenfeng Chen; Menghan Liu; Yuxiao Ou; Erjia Xu; Ping Hu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.