Q-cgi: New techniques to assess variation in perception applied to facial attractiveness

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 274, Issue 1627, 2007, Pages 2779-2784

  Burt, D Michael ^a   Kentridge, Robert W ^a   Good, James M M ^a   Perrett, David I ^b   Tiddeman, Bernard P ^b   Boothroyd, Lynda G ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Computer graphics; Facial attractiveness; Masculinity; Q methodology; Relationships

Indexed keywords

GRAPHICAL METHOD; MASCULINIZATION; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPH;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACIES; FEMALE; FEMININITY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MASCULINITY; PERCEPTION; PERSONALITY TEST; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 35848934601     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1037     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Benson, P. J. & Perrett, D. I. 1991 Synthesising continuoustone caricatures. Image Vision Comput. 9, 123-129. (doi:10.1016/0262- 8856(91)90022-H)
2. Brown, S. R. 1996 Q Methodology and qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 6, 561-567. (doi:10.1177/104973239 600600408)
3. Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. 1995 Perception of age in adult Caucasian male faces - computer graphic manipulation of shape and colour information. Proc. R. Soc. B 259, 137-143. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1995. 0021)
4. Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B. & Grammer, K. 2001 Male facial attractiveness - evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evol. Hum. Behav. 22, 251-267. (doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00066-6)
5. Jones, B. C. et al. 2005 Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 347-354. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2962)
6. Langlois, J. H. & Roggman, L. A. 1990 Attractive faces are only average. Psychol. Sci. 1, 115-121. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990. tb00079.x)
7. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. 2002 Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc. R. Soc. B 269, 1095-1100. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1984)
8. Manly, B. F. J. 1991 Randomization and Monte Carlo methods in biology. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
9. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K. & Minamisawa, R. 1999 Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399, 741-742. (doi:10.1038/21557)
10. Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P. & Perrett, D. I. 2003 Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male Homo sapiens. J. Comp. Psychol. 117, 264-271. (doi:10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.264)
11. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., Henzi, S. P., Castles, D. & Akamatsu, S. 1998 Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394, 884-887. (doi:10.1038/29772)
12. Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A. & Edwards, R. 1999 Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20, 295-307. (doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00014-8)
13. Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., Schmidt, N., Oxley, R., Kinlock, N. & Barrett, L. 2002 Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proc. R. Soc. B 269, 873-880. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1971)
14. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M. & Sumich, A. 1998 Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5, 659-669.
15. Rhodes, G., Hickford, C. & Jeffery, L. 2000 Sex-typicality and attractiveness: are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive. Br. J. Psychol. 91, 125-140. (doi:10.1348/000712600161718)
16. Scarbrough, P. & Johnston, V. 2005 Individual differences in women's facial preferences as a function of digit ratio and mental rotation ability. Evol. Hum. Behav. 26, 509-526. (doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005. 03.002)
17. Simpson, J. A. 1998 Sociosexual orientation inventory. In Handbook of sexuality-related measures (eds C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, R. Schreer & S. L. Davis), pp. 565-567. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Simpson, J. A. & Gangestad, S. W. 1991 Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 870-883. (doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870)
19. Stephenson, W. 1953 The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Tiddeman, B., Burt, M. & Perrett, D. 2001 Computer graphics in facial perception research. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21, 42-50. (doi:10.1109/38.946630)