Short Article: Are Attractive Facial Characteristics Peculiar to the Sex of a Face?

Abstract

Preferences for faces are thought to be the result of either general adaptations for mate selection, and thus influenced by sexual dimorphism, or mechanisms of general information processing and thus nonspecific to faces. If mate choice determines face preference then it should follow that the sex of a face should affect attractiveness judgements. To test this idea we used image morphing to generate three versions of face images: original, opposite sex, and antiface. First we established that the sex of the face was identifiable in our images. We then collected attractiveness ratings for the three face types. We found that attractiveness ratings to the original faces were correlated with, and did not differ significantly between, ratings to the opposite-sex faces. However, ratings for either the original or opposite face types were not correlated with and were significantly lower than ratings to the antifaces. Our findings failed to support the idea that attractiveness is related to sexual dimorphism in faces alone but suggest instead that other more generic factors influence preferences for all faces.

Keywords

Face perception Attractiveness Sex dimorphism Face space

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aharon

Etcoff

Ariely

Chabris

C. F.

O'Connor

Breiter

H. C.

(2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioural evidence. Neuron 32, 537–551.

Barrett

Dunbar

Lycett

(2002). Human evolutionary psychology Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Baudouin

J.-Y.

Gallay

(2006). Is face distinctiveness gender based?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32, 789–798.

Blanz

O'Toole

A. J.

Vetter

Wild

H. A.

(2000). On the other side of the mean: The perception of dissimilarity in human faces. Perception 29, 885–891.

Blanz

Vetter

A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces

In SIGGRAPH 99 Conference Proceedings. New York

ACM Press

1999 187–194.

Cohen

J. D.

MacWhinney

Flatt

Provost

(1993). Psyscope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 25, 257–271.

Halberstadt

Rhodes

(2000). The attractiveness of non-face averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science 11, 285–289.

Halberstadt

Rhodes

(2003). It's not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 149–156.

Kranz

Ishai

(2006). Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Current Biology 16, 63–68.

10.

Langlois

J. H.

Roggman

L. A.

(1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science 1, 115–121.

11.

Leopold

D. A.

O'Toole

A. J.

Vetter

Blanz

(2001). Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nature Neuroscience 4, 89–94.

12.

Møller

A. P.

Alatalo

R. V.

Good genes effects in sexual selection

Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B. 1999 266 85–91.

13.

Newell

F. N.

Chiroro

Valentine

(1999). Recognising unfamiliar faces: The role of distinctiveness and view. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 52A, 509–534.

14.

O'Toole

A. J.

Deffenbacher

K. A.

Valentin

McKee

Huff

Abdi

(1998). The perception of face gender: The role of stimulus structure in recognition and classification. Memory & Cognition 26, 146–160.

15.

O'Toole

A. J.

Price

Vetter

Bartlett

J. C.

Blanz

(1999). 3D shape and 2D surface textures of human faces: The role of “averages” in attractiveness and age. Image and Vision Computing 18, 9–14.

16.

Perrett

D. I.

Lee

K. J.

Penton-Voak

Rowland

Yoshikawa

Burt

D. M.

(1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394, 884–887.

17.

Perrett

D. I.

May

K. A.

Yoshikawa

(1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature 368, 239–242.

18.

Rhodes

(2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology 57, 199–226.

19.

Rhodes

Chan

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Simmons

L. W.

Does sexual dimorphism in humans signal health?

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences. 2003 270 S93–S95.

20.

Rhodes

Roberts

Simmons

(1999). Reflections on symmetry and attractiveness. Psychology, Evolution, and Gender 1, 279–295.

21.

Scheib

J. E.

Gangestad

S. W.

Thornhill

Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues to good genes

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B. 1999 266 1913–1917.

22.

Valentine

(1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 43A, 161–204.

23.

Valenzano

D. R.

Mennucci

Tartarelli

Cellerino

(2006). Shape analysis of female facial attractiveness. Vision Research 46, 1282–1291.

24.

Winkielman

Halberstadt

Fazendeiro

Catty

(2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 17, 799–804.