Abstract
Face attractiveness relates positively to the mathematical averageness of a face, but how close attractive faces of varying groups are to their own and to other-group prototypes in the face space remains unclear. In two studies, we modeled the locations of attractive and unattractive Caucasian, Asian, and African faces in participants’ face space using multidimensional scaling analysis. In all three sets of faces, facial attractiveness significantly increased with the absolute proximity of a face to its group prototype. In the case of Caucasian and African faces (Study 1), facial attractiveness also tended to increase with the absolute proximity of a face to the other-group prototype. However, this association was at best marginal, and it became clearly nonsignificant when distance to the own-group prototype was controlled for. Thus, the present research provides original evidence that average features of faces contribute to increasing their attractiveness, but only when these features are average to the group to which a face belongs. The present research also offers further support to face space models of people’s mental representations of faces.
Article PDF
References
Blanz, V., & Vetter, T. A. (1999). A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In SIGGRAPH ’99 Computer Graphics Proceedings (pp. 187–194). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Busey, T. A. (1998). Physical and psychological representations of faces: Evidence from morphing. Psychological Science, 9, 476–483.
Byatt, G., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Identification of own-race and otherrace faces: Implications for the representation of race in face space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 735–741.
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J.-J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.
Cash, T. F. (1999). The psychosocial consequences of androgenetic alopecia: A review of the research literature. British Journal of Dermatology, 141, 398–405.
Corneille, O., Huart, J., Becquart, E., & Brédart, S. (2004). When memory shifts towards more typical category exemplars: Accentuation effects in the recollection of ethnically ambiguous faces. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86, 236–250.
Corneille, O., Hugenberg, K., & Potter, T. (2007). Applying the attractor field model to social cognition: Perceptual discrimination is facilitated, but memory is impaired for faces displaying evaluatively congruent expressions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93, 335–352.
Corneille, O., Monin, B., & Pleyers, G. (2005). Is positivity a cue or a response option? Warm glow vs. evaluative matching in the familiarity for attractive and not-so-attractive faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 431–437.
Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Multidimensional scaling and individual differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 71–77.
Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.
Huart, J., Corneille, O., & Becquart, E. (2005). Face-based categorization, context-based categorization, and distortions in the recollection of gender ambiguous faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 598–608.
Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.
Lewis, M. B. (2004). Face-space-R: Towards a unified account of face recognition. Visual Cognition, 11, 29–69.
Light, L. L., Hollander, S., & Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 269–276.
Martens, W. L., & Zacharov, N. (2000, September). Multidimensional perceptual unfolding of spatially processed speech I: Deriving stimulus space using INDSCAL. Paper presented at the 109th International Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, Los Angeles.
Potter, T., Corneille, O., Ruys, K. I., & Rhodes, G. (2007). “Just another pretty face”: A multidimensional scaling approach to face attractiveness and variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 368–372.
Rhodes, G., Harwood, K., Yoshikawa, S., Nishitani, M., & McLean, I. G. (2002). The attractiveness of average facial configurations: Cross-cultural evidence and the biology of beauty. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 35–58). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Clifford, C. W. G., & Nakayama, K. (2003). Fitting the mind to the world: Face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects. Psychological Science, 14, 558–566.
Rhodes, G., Lee, K., Palermo, R., Weiss, M., Yoshikawa, S., Clissa, P., et al. (2005). Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception, 34, 319–340.
Rhodes, G., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2002). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Russell, R., Sinha, P., Biederman, I., & Nederhouser, M. (2006). Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception, 35, 749–759.
Schulte-Rüther, M., Markowitsch, H. J., Fink, G. R., & Piefke, M. (2007). Mirror neuron and theory of mind mechanisms involved in face-to-face interactions: A functional magnetic resonance imaging approach to empathy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1354–1372.
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.
Tanaka, J. W., & Corneille, O. (2007). Typicality effects in face and object perception: Further evidence for the attractor field model. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 619–627.
Tanaka, J. [W.], Giles, M., Kremen, S., & Simon, V. (1998). Mapping attractor fields in face space: The atypicality of bias in face recognition. Cognition, 68, 199–220.
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161–204.
Vokey, J. R., & Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces. Memory & Cognition, 20, 291–302.
Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Potter, T., Corneille, O. Locating attractiveness in the face space: Faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 615–622 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.615
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.615