Researchers have argued that humans' attraction to average faces reflects an evolved psychological mechanism to identify high-quality mates. If this direct-selection account is correct, there is no reason to expect a similar averageness bias for stimuli that are irrelevant to reproductive fitness. The current study, however, found a strong relationship between averageness and attractiveness for dogs, wristwatches, and birds. The most parsimonious explanation is that humans have a general attraction to prototypical exemplars, and that their attraction to average faces is a reflection of this more general attraction. We tested whether a general preference for familiar stimuli can account for the attractiveness of averageness. This account was not supported for dogs or birds, but could not be ruled out for watches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarkowJ.H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ.
(1992).
The adapted mind.
New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
BornsteinR.F.
(1989).
Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987.
Psychological Review,
106, 265–289.
3.
EndlerJ.A.BasoloA.L.
(1998).
Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
13, 415–420.
4.
EnquistM.ArakA.
(1994).
Symmetry, beauty and evolution.
Nature,
372, 169–172.
5.
EnquistM.JohnstoneR.A.
(1997).
Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B,
264, 1345–1348.
6.
FiskeS.T.
(1982).
Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In
ClarkM.S.FiskeS.T. (Eds.),
Affect and cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 55–78).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
FranksJ.J.BransfordJ.D.
(1971).
Abstraction of visual patterns.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
90, 65–74.
8.
GaverW.W.MandlerG.
(1987).
Play it again, Sam: On liking music.
Cognition and Emotion,
1, 259–282.
9.
GordonP.C.HolyoakK.J.
(1983).
Implicit learning and generalization of the “mere exposure” effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 492–500.
10.
GouldS.J.
(1978).
Sociobiology: The art of storytelling.
New Scientist,
16, 530–533.
11.
GouldS.J.
(1991).
Exaptation: A crucial tool for an evolutionary psychology.
Journal of Social Issues,
47, 43–65.
12.
GouldS.J.LewontinR.C.
(1979).
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
205, 581–598.
13.
JohnstoneR.A.
(1994).
Female preference for symmetrical males as a byproduct of selection for mate recognition.
Nature,
372, 172–175.
14.
KalickS.M.ZebrowitzL.A.LangloisJ.H.JohnsonR.M.
(1998).
Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question.
Psychological Science,
9, 8–13.
15.
Kunst-WilsonW.R.ZajoncR.B.
(1980).
Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized.
Science,
207, 557–558.
16.
LangloisJ.H.RoggmanL.A.
(1990).
Attractive faces are only average.
Psychological Science,
1, 115–121.
17.
LangloisJ.H.RoggmanL.A.MusselmanL.
(1994).
What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?Psychological Science,
5, 214–220.
18.
LightL.L.HollanderS.Kayra-StuartF.
(1981).
Why attractive people are harder to remember.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
7, 269–276.
19.
MandlerG.
(1984).
Mind and body.
New York: W.W. Norton.
20.
PerrinsC.M.
(1990).
The illustrated encyclopedia of birds: The definitive guide to birds of the world.
London: Headline.
21.
ReppB.H.
(1997).
The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two preliminary experiments.
Music Perception,
14, 419–444.
22.
RhodesG.HalberstadtJ.H.BrajkovichG.
(2000).
Generalization of mere exposure effects in social stimuli. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23.
RhodesG.SumichA.ByattG.
(1999).
Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry?Psychological Science,
10, 52–58.
RoseS.KaminL.J.LewontinR.C.
(1984).
Not in our genes: Biology, ideology and human nature.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
26.
RubensteinA.J.KalakanisL.LangloisJ.H.
(1999).
Infant preferences for attractive faces: A cognitive explanation.
Developmental Psychology,
15, 848–855.
27.
SelbyI. de L.S.
(1994).
Wrist watches.
Philadelphia: Courage Books.
28.
SmithJ.D.MelaraR.J.
(1990).
Aesthetic preference and syntactic prototypicality in music: 'Tis the gift to be simple.
Cognition,
34, 279–298.
29.
SolsoR.L.McCarthyJ.E.
(1981).
Prototype formation: Central tendency model vs. attribute frequency model.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
17, 10–11.
30.
SolsoR.L.RaynisS.A.
(1979).
Prototype formation from imaged, kinesthetically, and visually presented geometric figures.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
5, 701–712.
31.
SylvesterP.
(1993).
The Reader's Digest illustrated book of dogs
(2nd rev. ed.).
Montreal, Canada: Reader's Digest.
32.
ThornhillR.GangestadS.W.
(1993).
Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance.
Human Nature,
4, 237–269.
33.
ZajoncR.B.
(1968).
Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
9, 1–27.
