Literature DB >> 8145822

Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.

D I Perrett1, K A May, S Yoshikawa.   

Abstract

The finding that photographic and digital composites (blends) of faces are considered to be attractive has led to the claim that attractiveness is averageness. This would encourage stabilizing selection, favouring phenotypes with an average facial structure. The 'averageness hypothesis' would account for the low distinctiveness of attractive faces but is difficult to reconcile with the finding that some facial measurements correlate with attractiveness. An average face shape is attractive but may not be optimally attractive. Human preferences may exert directional selection pressures, as with the phenomena of optimal outbreeding and sexual selection for extreme characteristics. Using composite faces, we show here that, contrary to the averageness hypothesis, the mean shape of a set of attractive faces is preferred to the mean shape of the sample from which the faces were selected. In addition, attractive composites can be made more attractive by exaggerating the shape differences from the sample mean. Japanese and caucasian observers showed the same direction of preferences for the same facial composites, suggesting that aesthetic judgements of face shape are similar across different cultural backgrounds. Our finding that highly attractive facial configurations are not average shows that preferences could exert a directional selection pressure on the evolution of human face shape.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8145822     DOI: 10.1038/368239a0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  74 in total

1.  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

2.  Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces.

Authors:  Tim Valentine; Stephen Darling; Mary Donnelly
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-06

3.  Selective sweeps in multilocus models of quantitative traits.

Authors:  Pavlos Pavlidis; Dirk Metzler; Wolfgang Stephan
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Longer fixation duration while viewing face images.

Authors:  Kun Guo; Sasan Mahmoodi; Robert G Robertson; Malcolm P Young
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-24       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Impact of voice on emotional judgment of faces: an event-related fMRI study.

Authors:  Thomas Ethofer; Silke Anders; Michael Erb; Christina Droll; Lydia Royen; Ralf Saur; Susanne Reiterer; Wolfgang Grodd; Dirk Wildgruber
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  The role of facial attractiveness and facial masculinity/femininity in sex classification of faces.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hoss; Jennifer L Ramsey; Angela M Griffin; Judith H Langlois
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  ALE meta-analysis on facial judgments of trustworthiness and attractiveness.

Authors:  D Bzdok; R Langner; S Caspers; F Kurth; U Habel; K Zilles; A Laird; Simon B Eickhoff
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 3.270

8.  Temporal isolation of neural processes underlying face preference decisions.

Authors:  Hackjin Kim; Ralph Adolphs; John P O'Doherty; Shinsuke Shimojo
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-11-07       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  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

10.  Emotion-Dependent Functional Connectivity of the Default Mode Network in Adolescent Depression.

Authors:  Tiffany C Ho; Colm G Connolly; Eva Henje Blom; Kaja Z LeWinn; Irina A Strigo; Martin P Paulus; Guido Frank; Jeffrey E Max; Jing Wu; Melanie Chan; Susan F Tapert; Alan N Simmons; Tony T Yang
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 13.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.