Locating attractiveness in the face space: Faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 615-622

  Potter, Timothy ^a,b   Corneille, Olivier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

^b FNRS   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; ESTHETICS; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY;

BEAUTY; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 50949104730     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.3.615     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. 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.
2. BUSEY, T. A. (1998). Physical and psychological representations of faces: Evidence from morphing. Psychological Science, 9, 476-483.
3. BYATT, G., & RHODES, G. (2004). Identification of own-race and other-race faces: Implications for the representation of race in face space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 735-741.
4. 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.
5. CASH, T. F. (1999). The psychosocial consequences of androgenetic alopecia: A review of the research literature. British Journal of Dermatology, 141, 398-405.
6. 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.
7. CORNEILLE, O., HUOENBERG, 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.
8. 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.
9. GREEN, P. E., & RAO, V. R. (1971). Multidimensional scaling and individual differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 71-77.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. LANGLOIS, J. H., & ROGGMAN, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
13. LEWIS, M. B. (2004). Face-space-R: Towards a unified account of face recognition. Visual Cognition, 11, 29-69.
14. LIGHT, L. L., HOLLANDER, S., & KAYRA- STUART, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 269-276.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. RHODES, G., & ZEBROWITZ, L. A. (2002). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex.
21. RUSSELL, R., SINHA, P., BIEDERMAN, I., & NEDERHOUSER, M. (2006). Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception, 35, 749-759.
22. 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.
23. SHIMOJO, S., SIMION, C., SHIMOJO, E., & SCHEIER, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317-1322.
24. TANAKA, I. W., & CORNEILLE, O. (2007). Typicality effects in face and object perception: Further evidence for the attractor field model. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 619-627.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. VOKEY, J. R., & READ, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces. Memory & Cognition, 20, 291-302.
28. WINKIELMAN, P., HALBERSTADT, J., FAZENDEIRO, T., & CATTY, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799-806.