Abstract
THE finding that photographic1–4 and digital5 composites (blends) of faces are considered to be attractive has led to the claim that attractiveness is averageness5. This would encourage stabilizing selection, favouring phenotypes with an average facial structure5. The 'averageness hypothesis' would account for the low distinctive-ness of attractive faces6 but is difficult to reconcile with the finding that some facial measurements correlate with attractiveness7,8. An average face shape is attractive but may not be optimally attractive9. Human preferences may exert directional selection pressures, as with the phenomena of optimal outbreeding and sexual selection for extreme characteristics10–14. 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.
Access options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
220,50 €
only 4,32 € per issue
All prices include VAT for France.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
from$8.99
All prices are NET prices.
References
- 1.
Galton, F. J. Nature 18, 97–100 (1878).
- 2.
Galton, F. J. Anthrop. Inst. Gt Br. Ir. 8, 132–142 (1878).
- 3.
Jastrow, J. Science 6, 165–168 (1885).
- 4.
Stoddard, J. T. Science 8, 89–91 (1886).
- 5.
Langlois, J. H. & Roggman, L. A. Psychol. Sci. 1, 115–121 (1990).
- 6.
Light, L. L., Hollander, S. & Kayra-Stuart, F. Personal. social Psychol. Bull. 7, 269–276 (1981).
- 7.
Cunningham, M. R. J. pers. soc. Psychol. 50, 925–935 (1986).
- 8.
Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P. & Pike, C. L. J. pers. soc. Psychol. 59, 61–72 (1990).
- 9.
Alley, T. R. & Cunningham, M. R. Psychol. Sci. 2, 123–125 (1991).
- 10.
ten Cate, C. & Bateson, P. Evolution 42, 1355–1358 (1991).
- 11.
Andersson, M. Nature 299, 818–820 (1982).
- 12.
Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. Nature 350, 33–38 (1991).
- 13.
Møller, A. P. Nature 357, 238–240 (1992).
- 14.
Enquist, M. & Arak, A. Nature 361, 446–448 (1993).
- 15.
Cross, J. F. & Cross, J. Devl Psychol. 5, 433–439 (1971).
- 16.
Bernstein, I. H., Lin, T. & McLellan, P. Percept. Psychophys. 32, 495–503 (1982).
- 17.
Symons, D. The Evolution of Human Sexuality (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1979).
- 18.
Brennan, S. E. Leonardo 18, 170–178 (1985).
- 19.
Benson, P. J. & Perrett, D. I. Image vis. Comput. 9, 123–129 (1991).
- 20.
Benson, P. J. & Perrett, D. I. Perception 22, 257–262 (1993).
Author information
Affiliations
School of Pyschology, University of St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9JU, UK
- D. I. Perrett
- & K. A May
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Letters, Otemon Gakuin University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567, Japan
- S. Yoshikawa
Authors
Search for D. I. Perrett in:
Search for K. A May in:
Search for S. Yoshikawa in:
Rights and permissions
To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.
About this article
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
