| Literature DB >> 28790941 |
Aurélie Porcheron1,2, Emmanuelle Mauger1, Frédérique Soppelsa3, Yuli Liu4, Liezhong Ge4, Olivier Pascalis2, Richard Russell5, Frédérique Morizot1.
Abstract
Age is a fundamental social dimension and a youthful appearance is of importance for many individuals, perhaps because it is a relevant predictor of aspects of health, facial attractiveness and general well-being. We recently showed that facial contrast-the color and luminance difference between facial features and the surrounding skin-is age-related and a cue to age perception of Caucasian women. Specifically, aspects of facial contrast decrease with age in Caucasian women, and Caucasian female faces with higher contrast look younger (Porcheron et al., 2013). Here we investigated faces of other ethnic groups and raters of other cultures to see whether facial contrast is a cross-cultural youth-related attribute. Using large sets of full face color photographs of Chinese, Latin American and black South African women aged 20-80, we measured the luminance and color contrast between the facial features (the eyes, the lips, and the brows) and the surrounding skin. Most aspects of facial contrast that were previously found to decrease with age in Caucasian women were also found to decrease with age in the other ethnic groups. Though the overall pattern of changes with age was common to all women, there were also some differences between the groups. In a separate study, individual faces of the 4 ethnic groups were perceived younger by French and Chinese participants when the aspects of facial contrast that vary with age in the majority of faces were artificially increased, but older when they were artificially decreased. Altogether these findings indicate that facial contrast is a cross-cultural cue to youthfulness. Because cosmetics were shown to enhance facial contrast, this work provides some support for the notion that a universal function of cosmetics is to make female faces look younger.Entities:
Keywords: age; cross-cultural; face perception; facial contrast; races
Year: 2017 PMID: 28790941 PMCID: PMC5524771 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01208
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Average faces of young (20–29) and old (60–69) women from French Caucasian, Chinese, Latin American, and South African origin. Each average face was created with 20 individual faces.
Figure 2Labeling of facial regions. The dashed lines demonstrate how the features and surrounding skin were defined (eye regions: blue and white dots, skin around the eyes: green dots, mouth region: purple dots, skin around the mouth: light green dots, eyebrow regions: yellow and light green dots, skin around eyebrows: orange and red dots). The individual whose face appears here gave consent for her likeness to be published in this article.
The relationship between age and luminance (L*) or color (a*, b*) contrast for the 4 groups of faces.
| Brow | L* | −0.50 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.33 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.49 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.21 | <0.05 | Decrease |
| a* | −0.27 | <0.05 | Decrease | 0.21 | <0.05 | / | −0.06 | ns | / | −0.36 | <0.05 | Decrease | |
| b* | −0.23 | <0.05 | Decrease | 0.08 | ns | / | −0.11 | ns | / | −0.26 | <0.05 | Decrease | |
| Eyes | L* | −0.11 | <0.10 | Decrease | −0.09 | ns | / | −0.13 | <0.10 | Decrease | −0.25 | <0.05 | Decrease |
| a* | −0.32 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.10 | ns | / | −0.30 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.46 | <0.05 | Decrease | |
| b* | −0.24 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.18 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.17 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.40 | <0.05 | Decrease | |
| Mouth | L* | 0.03 | NS | / | 0.21 | <0.05 | Increase | 0.14 | <0.10 | Increase | 0.18 | <0.05 | Increase |
| a* | −0.292 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.35 | <0.05 | Decrease | −0.34 | <0.05 | Decrease | 0.23 | <0.05 | Decrease | |
| b* | 0.16 | <0.05 | Increase | 0.28 | <0.05 | Increase | 0.06 | ns | / | −0.06 | ns | / | |
The L.
The a.
The a.
Age distribution of Study 2 faces by ethnic origin.
| N | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 |
| Mean ± SD | 43.00 ± 12.92 | 42.35 ± 12.82 | 41.83 ± 13.37 | 42.87 ± 14.02 |
| Min-Max | 23.0–63.0 | 20.0–63.0 | 20.0–66.0 | 21.0–67.0 |
Direction of the manipulations for each version (low contrast vs. high contrast) and magnitude of the manipulations by ethnic origin of faces.
| Brows | L* | Lighter | Darker | 17.84 ± 3.05 | 19.21 ± 4.34 | 17.02 ± 3.69 | 11.09 ± 3.16 |
| Eyes | L* | Lighter | Darker | 11.22 ± 2.99 | 10.13 ± 1.74 | 10.69 ± 2.25 | 7.79 ± 2.06 |
| Eyes | a* | Redder | Less red | 2.32 ± 0.98 | 2.41 ± 0.62 | 2.99 ± 0.64 | 2.23 ± 0.49 |
| Eyes | b* | Yellower | Less yellow | 4.75 ± 0.69 | 4.49 ± 0.72 | 4.90 ± 0.63 | 4.99 ± 0.99 |
| Mouth | a* | Less red | Redder | 4.86 ± 1.31 | 3.74 ± 0.53 | 3.98 ± 0.82 | 3.08 ± 0.71 |
The magnitude of the manipulations corresponds to the mean absolute difference in a.
Figure 3Examples of high and low contrast versions for Caucasian, Chinese, Latin American and South African faces. To respect the privacy of the women, we have averaged individual faces from the study to create 4 composites in high vs. low version.
Figure 4Percent of trials for which the high contrast face was judged younger than the low contrast face. Chance performance is 50%.